Off Topic UK / EU Future

Does anyone else see this as amusing? I am in the middle of two debates - seemingly arguing against a fervent brexiter on one side and remainer on the other

 

You show in your post Leo that what was being asked for by some was impossible. Two years on there is no clear idea of where this government is trying to take us. It could have helped to have delayed article 50 until a clear agreed position had been formed. It would not have been issued yet.

 

Before the referendum there was little or no understanding by the general public of how each model operated. What they voted on was the information, expressed by all sides, that a vote for Brexit meant leaving the single market and the customs union. If your varies options are compatible within these red lines then they may well have been considered. The soft options also needed to comply with the main reasons so many voted for Brexit, Sovereignty, control of borders, no large payments to Brussels etc.

 

Good god almighty we are going to be in so much doo doo. Talk about pooping on your own doorstep.

 

Come off it - the EU were demanding that Article 50 be triggered as were most people, MPs, press etc in the UK. The government was roundly criticised for delay in implementing it.
Do you seriously believe it could have been delayed further and what reason tdo you have for hoping that any consensus would have been reached. One thing so far has been seen - the only decisions to be made were ones up against a deadline.
You do not seem to accept that there is no clear idea of what sort of brexit is even possible. To get that the EU would have to spell out something on their side and understandably they will not because it is not their mess and they do not want it solved.

 

You are ignoring the fact that Norway is not IN the SM or CU. So do you accept that a Norway model in the EEA is an acceptable compromise? It was certainly played out in the referendum as a major possibility. You do not accept that I think.

 

We pooped on our entire house Did not think you were big into god.

 

When to trigger article 50 was entirely in the hands of the PM. I do not expect that a consensus would have been agreed, anymore than it has been now. It is therefore foolhardy to start a process without a clear vision of where it leads to. I am quite sure that the EU do wish it to be solved, they are fed up with all this wasted time and effort that they are having to put into something that was not of their making. Look on the EU website and you will find clear information for the general public to understand. The UK government puts a little on line, but like many of the papers presented to the EU they are very vague.

 

You are correct, I do not accept a 'Norway type model' was discussed except by a few Brexit nerds, like us.

I have consistently laid out my red lines, I would not accept much movement on those at all. I suppose I'm ready to take our chances on a 'no deal' more than most, it probably reflects on my general attitude.

 

It was not entirely within the hands of the PM. The EU almost demanded it be triggered and refused to even talk to the UK unitl it had.
Foolhardy was to hold a referendum. Once held the rest has fallen like a deck of cards.
They are putting very little effort in and it is not high on any of their agendas.

Anyway at work we use to have a saying - don't complain about a problem unless you have a solution. So tell us what clear vision that could be agreed there could be. I say none.

 

There is the rub SH. You, like many other brexiters, do not accept one of the outcomes. The Norway model was widely debated and discussed across all media for a long time in the run up to the referendum - it was certainly not just a few nerds.
Personally I think it sucks - why leave the EU to end up with what Norway has? But there again why leave the EU?

 

I along with 17.5 million others had, and still have, compelling reasons to leave the EU. We wanted sovereignty, end to uncontrolled immigration, we disliked the road to a superstate and finally the UK could do with the large amount it currently sends to Brussels. There is little doubt the UK will have a difficult time in the next few years but this is no reason to shy away from trying to achieve our objectives.

 

16.3 million voted to remain.
Brexiters wanted a variety of things. Not all wanted out of the CU and SM.
Sovereignty is mostly in the mind but fair enough for those few who understand it and really wanted it.
Migration was the single most complicated factor - and still will be - but again fair enough for those who thought EU migration was a problem
The UK had an opt out from any superstate.
The net amount sent to Brussels was less than we have lost due to currency fluctuations alone - and lower growth going forward - all bar TM accept there is no brexit dividend.
I accept that for those who are prepared to accept the UK will be economically worse off out of the EU they may have gained non economic benefits. You could say the same about voting Labour - there are many good reasons but the economy is not one.

 

You have no conception whatsoever why people voted the way they did, or are you a mind reader ? I would suggest that everyone voted for his /her own reasons, whether to leave or to remain, and all had a slightly different idea of what might follow. Some Brexiters may have had none of the reasons which you suggest, but simply wanted to harm Cameron with a protest vote. The fact is you will get less sovereignty outside of the EU. because you will have to go running after trade deals left right and centre - do you think that the likes of uncle Donald, or separate TTIP deals would win you any sovereignty to compensate for the pooled sovereignty you have lost with the EU. Immigration ? Most of it's non EU. anyway and the government have not succeeded in controlling that, so why should Brexit make any difference ? As for money, you conveniently forget (purposefully I think) that Britain gets two thirds of its payments back from the EU. This British rebate is paid for by all the other 27 nations in proportion to their respective GDP. And lastly nobody asked you to be a member of any superstate - in fact there was no other member that received as many opt outs and concessions as Britain did.

 

The 16.3 who voted for remain lost. They need to come to terms with the result.

I accept leaving the EU will generally be traumatic and damaging for some. I do not however accept it is given that the UK will be economically worse off once the dust has settled. The reasons why the UK has consistently out performed Euroland over the last ten years are still valid. Hopefully the EU's need to self harm can be treated with a dose of realism once the financial negatives on their side start looming.

There are always currency fluctuations, once sensible trading arrangements for all are agreed sterling will rise again.
The EU are scared of the UK's potential, this is why they possess so much desire to hamper our chances of making a success out of Brexit.

 

report here - try this one


There have been many reports done to ascertain the main reasons why the UK public voted to leave the EU which I have previously listed. You do not need to be a mind reader.

 

The 16.3m have been made well aware that they lost. Nice of you to rub it in. Perhaps though they will get their revenge by going for a Norway style deal which they and some brexiters would support. Then you would have lost - if we really have to be so childish in the way we argue

 

That is totally wrong Cologne. Of course we all have a conception of why people voted the way they did - not individually as it was a secret ballot but in numbers we do - there has been masses of analysis on the reasons. SH was using normal conversational style in saying "people voted this way because....." We all do that.
We all know a range of reasons and all know some voted for most some for a few and maybe one or two for reasons that have not even come to light.

 

I was not being childish but stating simply a harsh fact. Many that were on the losing side have not accepted the fact despite the numerous challenges along the way. Until it becomes clear cut, like at an election, there will be little hope of reconciliation between the two groups.

 

There may have been analysis on why people voted the way they did, but we know from opinion polls that these can often be wide of the mark. If people are asked point blank 'Why did you vote this way or that way' you seldom get an accurate answer - people sometimes answer what they think the interviewer wants to hear, sometimes they are ashamed of their reasons. You can say what you like about analysis, but if you have 17 million people voting then you will have 17 million slightly different reasons, and some of those may be very trivial indeed.