Off Topic UK / EU Future

Of course every voter has slightly different reasons why they voted in the referendum the way they did. What you cannot argue about is all studies give the most popular reasons for the 'leave' vote i.e. sovereignty, control of borders, cash to Brussels etc. All of these main reasons were well debated at the time.

 

Our one time owner, who believes in Brexit, has joined the bunch of wealthy people recommending that companies move to the EU. Lord Ashcroft is extolling the virtues of Malta for ambitious companies who need to remain in the EU. The peer admitted that some companies would need to move tens of thousands of posts due to the uncertainty of the situation. For larger companies that need to move even more people, they should look at other countries within the EU. This comes from the Tory website, so I guess it will be accurate. Is this realism taking priority over ideology?

 

Apologies for saying childish - but "we won- you lost " is a very playground way of arguing.
I think you need to ask yourself (if you like this black and white approach) one question.
If TM chooses to go with a Norway model of brexit - which almost certainly ould win hands down with the public - will you still feel you won? You will have brexit and yet will not have many of the things you wnated. Equally us losers will have lost what we really wanted but will at least have the best brexit.

 

Anybody running a decent sized business relying mainly on the shrinking EU market would already know of the business and personal tax advantages in countries such as Malta and Cyprus. They have been there for a long time. It is not hard to imagine job losses and gains for the UK after Brexit. It is also not difficult to contemplate huge job losses on the continent if the EU creates difficult trading conditions with the UK, especially with Trump seeking to remove the apparent US tariff trade imbalance in the near future.

Certainly some EU countries need all the help they can get in creating jobs. They may require some quick reforms to be attractive enough.

 

To be honest the Norway solution is something which nobody would have voted for prior to the referendum - who would in their right minds. However it has now come down to damage limitation - the hard Brexiters would feel themselves cheated, and everyone else would see everything as before but without any voting rights in the whole thing. That really would be a lose-lose situation. Unless some magician is going to come along and simply tear up article 50 and say ''We're not doing it'' (We can only dream), then the best course is a clean break with the hope that with generational change we can, one day, join again. In the meantime Jerry can come marching in and turn many areas of our economy into national assets again (which he might have problems doing inside the EU.) If Brexit is going to happen then we have to turn it into a Socialist one !

 

accepted.
You know what I am looking for, to achieve all of the original red lines. It is quite possible we all lose with a mish mash relationship with all, or most, of the problems without the benefits, certainly on the cards if Hammond gets his way.

I would rather have a seriously problematic 'no deal' break which then concentrated the minds of the potential vast number of losers to strike a working compromise.

 

The question has been asked and answered so many times that it is fairly clear what were the major reasons for voting. Nobody denies that no two people had identical reasons - SH was giving you a brief synopsis of the major factors - and unless you want to stand alone you will accept as others have - those reasons.

 

Farage is on record as saying that leaving the single market is not a good idea. He also went on to say that we should follow the ways of Norway or Switzerland who are two of the richest countries in Europe with their type of association to the EU. He didn't have an answer to the free movement that goes with it.

 

How do you know "nobody would have voted for the Norway model"? It was put forward as a credible alternative and probably swayed a lot of people to think we could have brexit but still have the best of the EU - if you want to talk about people in their right minds then explain to me why 17.4m voted brexit - were many of them in their right minds?
Anyway then is then and now is now. The Norway model gives us most of the advantages of being in the EU - most notably the single market and customs union. It avoids an Ireland "situation". The fact that we would have to pay is not much different to before and that we would have to accept the free movement of people is fine for all remainers of course and also for those brexiters who did not vote brexit on immigration. Therefore unlike all other forms of brexit it should have mass appeal. I suspect it is where TM will all but end up.
Personally I think it is a stupid result as it is inferior to being in the EU - but hey - I am a loser and have accepted it so would now like the Norway model as a shaft to the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and others who have wrecked a good thing

 

I would say that there is also another camp of Brexit voters out there. Nobody really knows how big this is because the question has never been asked. You will remember that the Labour manifesto of Michael Foot also had leaving the EEC as one of its priorities. What you call the hard left has a difficult position in all this - they view the EU. as a neo liberal club. They saw the forced privatizations in Greece. They saw how TTIP and CETA were being dealt with behind closed doors. I actually found it strange that I was on the same side as David Cameron in the referendum debate, when the likes of George Galloway were on the other side. We know that most of the real hard left parties such as the SWP. Socialist Party of Great Britain were for Brexit. How was it with momentum sympathisers - we don't know. The truth as that even a half hearted socialist programme would be problematic within EU. laws. So the question is 'how big was the socialist Brexit vote' ? We don't know because it has never been asked. People are just presented with a list of options and asked to tick some of them - which tells us nothing.

 

Your "original red lines" only appeared a long time after the referendum when TM tried to start cobbling together some form of policy.
If we end up with a mish mash so be it - we should have voted remain. Perhaps you would like a second referendum if that happens to that we can reject brexit if the alternative is a Hammond style deal?
You might accept a seriously problematic "no deal " break but you tell us you are very wealthy so can probably handle it - but car workers, farmers, fishermen, people in other manufacturing industries, the services industry, people in N Ireland, the aviation industry etc may not feel the same as you do.

 

I accept that point but as you say we do not know. What we do know is that the hard left are a tiny minority. I am sure they were part of the left wing side that voted brexit. Momentum are only a couple of hundred thousand people - just because they have managed to take over and redirect the Labour Party does not make them any more important in an actual election.

 

I certainly would not consider myself as very wealthy, certainly Brexit has made me much less so. My 'red lines' have always been the objectives of Brexiteers, sorry to mention it again, sovereignty, control of borders, trade deals with rest of world and not sending large amounts of cash to Brussels. Despite the chance of a watered down Brexit I am still pleased I voted for it. There is always a chance of further negotiations later on.

In that report I highlighted earlier one fact should out. New voters, those that had not voted in the 2015 election, gained 60% of the vote. This rather backs up your assessment that the UK public would be liable to vote for Brexit again next tim.

 

I don't remember my "assessment that the UK public would vote for brexit again". I have said polls have shown little or no movement so result would again be too close to call.

 

It must have been another sage who posted such a pearl of wisdom.

 

I am not sure any other sage posts on here - there are a few onions though
What I have said is I do not believe the polls that show remain are ahead mean much. The idea of having another referendum because the polls show people have changed their minds is wrong - another referendum or not should not be down to the transient nature of unreliable opinion polls.

 

Relying on opinion polls is exactly the policy adopted by the SNP to gauge the timing of the next Scottish independence referendum. I think they will be waiting an awfully long time.

 

My view is the referendum result stands - however much we might like to bitch about the stupidity of its set up, the lies, the daft forecasts and so on; it does not matter how long it takes to implement if taking time is needed (although it would be nice to get it over with).
The only argument I think makes any sense now would be if the government came up with two or three scenarios and asked the public to pick which one they wanted.

 

The only problem with that idea is the government are not in a position to offer anything without the EU's agreement. The present system in relying on the UK government to achieve the best possible outcome based on the wishes of the successful majority of the referendum, is the only practical option.

There was at least as much inaccurate information presented by the 'remain' as the 'leave' side before the referendum. However anybody with the slightest interest could have obtained lots of useful pointers by clicking onto this forum. I think we did it to death.

 

I'm reminded of the film About Schmidt where hen pecked Jack Nicholson decides to pee all over the walls and floor of his own bathroom having been nagged by his late wife to sit down when taking a visit. He goes off on a road trip and returns several weeks later to the mess and stench.

I often invoke everybody's favourite imaginary friend.