Brexit matters

[edwin_m]

Except only 37% of adult British citizens actually voted for Brexit, given a number of people did not vote. You don't make radical changes based on what 37% of people wanted on a random day in June 2016

And I will add, yet again, that almost every opinion poll from autumn 2017 onwards showed a majority in favour of not leaving the EU. So there is strong evidence that the "will of the people" had changed.

 

[pemma]

And I will add, yet again, that almost every opinion poll from autumn 2017 onwards showed a majority in favour of not leaving the EU. So there is strong evidence that the "will of the people" had changed.

The reality is if you had three options:
1. The EU is brilliant.
2. The EU isn't perfect but Brexit could be much worse.
3. Brexit will be brilliant.

Most people would likely opt for 2. But it seems everyone's expected to either be a number 1 or a number 3, which is what then created hatred and division.

 

[JamesT]

Except only 37% of adult British citizens actually voted for Brexit, given a number of people did not vote. You don't make radical changes based on what 37% of people wanted on a random day in June 2016, though I will say that was Cameron's fault in designing the referendum in such a simple-minded way. Also, EU citizens, who are most effected by Brexit, were denied the vote which in my view makes the whole referendum invalid. Radical changes to the UK's relationship with its neighbours should require a very substantial majority, not 13 for vs 12 against which is basically a tie. The Scottish independence referendum was designed in a much more intelligent way because it did require a substantial majority to pass.

Nope, the 2014 referendum was a simple majority as well. You may be thinking of the 1979 devolution referendum which required 40% of the electorate to vote Yes, which caused considerable resentment as the vote was lost despite a majority voting for.

And even if you do accept that Brexit must happen because 37% of adult British citizens wanted it, the referendum did not actually ask people whether they wanted to stop EU citizens emigrating here. This was purely something the Tories - May and Johnson - decided to do unilaterally afterwards. Many of us resent this deeply - the Conservative Party have not only taken away EU citizens' right to live here, they have taken away our automatic right to live in EU countries, a right we have had for around 30 years.

And if we're talking about "what the people want" - did we want the poll tax? Did we want the early 2010s austerity? Did we want the harsh monetarist policies of the early 80s? Conduct referenda on those issues and I suspect that the Tories would have lost heavily. But unlike Brexit, it did not suit the Tories' interest to run referenda on those things.

Governments elected with majorities are generally considered to have a mandate to make their changes. We didn’t have referendums on Maastricht or Lisbon either. With austerity, remember that all major parties were promising that at the 2010 election.

Exactly, that, together with the substantially less-than-100% turnout (only 37% actually voted for Brexit) and the denial of the vote to EU citizens, who are the ones most affected by it, means that I have never accepted the actions performed by the Tories following the result. And that's before we start questioning some of the blatant lies ('EU citizens' rights will not be affected' - if that's the case why did they require 'settled status') of the Leave campaign.

Though, if there had been a softer Brexit which retained freedom of movement and the customs union, I would accept it and wouldn't be moaning in threads like this And that would be much more reflective of the result than the anti-immigration hard Brexit that has been the outcome so far.

Flip the result to 13 people voting remain for every 12 voting Brexit. Would that be a mandate for the UK to have an even closer relationship with the EU and join the euro, for example? I doubt it. Brexiters need to consider that when attempting to justify the hard Brexit that May and Johnson implemented.


I'd have take the Scottish referendum approach and stipulated that to pass, Brexit must have at least 60% of the vote OR at least 50% of ALL British adult residents (not just those who voted) - citizens or otherwise - voting for it. Only then would there be a clear mandate for it.


That does make sense, yes.

This was not considered enough, there was too much of a rush to "get Brexit done" by some arbitrary date.

One thing I will say is that the anti-immigration aspects of Brexit should not have been unilaterally decided by the Tories. Maybe this should have been asked in a further referendum.

The anti-immigration policy and lack of customs union are what I resent most about Brexit. As I said above, if we were in a Norway-style arrangement I would accept the result and never whinge about it again...

Unfortunately a lot of this is down to the Article 50 process. The EU would not accept any sort of negotiation about the form Brexit would take until the process had started, at which point the clock was ticking.
I’m not sure that a Norway-style arrangement was ever open to us, the EEA said they wouldn’t accept the UK. The mood music from the EU was also very much that we couldn’t pick and choose, it was either a very tight relationship or being completely out.

 

[bspahh]

Unfortunately a lot of this is down to the Article 50 process. The EU would not accept any sort of negotiation about the form Brexit would take until the process had started, at which point the clock was ticking.
I’m not sure that a Norway-style arrangement was ever open to us, the EEA said they wouldn’t accept the UK. The mood music from the EU was also very much that we couldn’t pick and choose, it was either a very tight relationship or being completely out.

A soft Brexit was possible. The Conservative party set red lines, including blocking the free movement of labour. At that point, a Norway-style arrangement was out.

 

[adrock1976]

Ok, here's another example. Wanting a second referendum when the first didn't go their way....

To be fair, that was the majority of politicians, not just labour, but I wouldn't call them freedom loving. Accepting the public's votes is part of democracy, which is a part of freedom.

I'll even put it another way. Putin has a referendum on whether to stop the war or not, people vote to stop it, then he calls for another referendum claiming all sorts of rubbish simple because he didn't like the way the first one went.

Until Labour sees that, and actually commits to respecting the public, they'll never win, because then you just have the vote for the least worse, or even not voting at all, and Conservative voters are more committed to voting than Labour ones.

Remember that Northern Ireland, Scotland, London, and Gibraltar (part of South West Region) had all overwhelmingly voted to remain.

If Cameron was smart enough and instead of trying to out Farage Nigel Farage, he would have ensured that for the UK to leave, that there would have to be a minimum turnout of at least 75%, and with a minimum of 75% voting to leave. That way, it would have far more conclusive with there being less division that has been caused.

 

[AlterEgo]

Remember that Northern Ireland, Scotland, London, and Gibraltar (part of South West Region) had all overwhelmingly voted to remain.

If Cameron was smart enough and instead of trying to out Farage Nigel Farage, he would have ensured that for the UK to leave, that there would have to be a minimum turnout of at least 75%, and with a minimum of 75% voting to leave. That way, it would have far more conclusive with there being less division that has been caused.

But that wouldn’t have allayed his fears about his eurosceptic backbenchers. That’s why he called the referendum in the first place.

 

[RT4038]

Remember that Northern Ireland, Scotland, London, and Gibraltar (part of South West Region) had all overwhelmingly voted to remain.

If Cameron was smart enough and instead of trying to out Farage Nigel Farage, he would have ensured that for the UK to leave, that there would have to be a minimum turnout of at least 75%, and with a minimum of 75% voting to leave. That way, it would have far more conclusive with there being less division that has been caused.

I think 'overwhelmingly' is hyperbole. They voted to remain; I would consider a 90% + vote as 'overwhelming' and none of them did that. However, the UK as a whole voted to leave, just. Unfortuntately those who didn't vote cannot be easily counted or considered . Even if you did try and consider them, (those who were eligible but were out of the country on holiday or work, or incapacitated for some reason) then a 60% leave vote would be about tops before it could be seriously challenged on democratic principle.

 

[317 forever]

Remember that Northern Ireland, Scotland, London, and Gibraltar (part of South West Region) had all overwhelmingly voted to remain.

If Cameron was smart enough and instead of trying to out Farage Nigel Farage, he would have ensured that for the UK to leave, that there would have to be a minimum turnout of at least 75%, and with a minimum of 75% voting to leave. That way, it would have far more conclusive with there being less division that has been caused.

Most of the other large cities also voted Remain. So for example, Manchester city voted 60%, on a par with Greater London. The only large cities to vote Leave were Birmingham & Sheffield.

If Sinn Fein become the largest party in the Northern Ireland elections in May, this could put a new perspective on Brexit, for how it affects them in particular.

 

[REVUpminster]

Complaining people had changed their minds about Brexit doesn't stand up or the Tories would not have won in 2019 so convincingly. Remainers could have voted LibDem or Labour.

 

[ainsworth74]

Complaining people had changed their minds about Brexit doesn't stand up or the Tories would not have won in 2019 so convincingly. Remainers could have voted LibDem or Labour.

Though of course General Elections are a terrible way of deciding a single issue as for every voter that voted for party because of policy X another will be holding their nose and voting for them because of policy Y despite not liking policy X. There's also issues around the disastrous state of the Labour Party generally under Corbyn (policy wise they weren't a million miles away from the electorate but Corbyn was almost unbelievably toxic) not exactly presenting an especially enticing prospect.

Then there's the problem that it was convincing in terms of seats and it even managed to be more convincing than previous elections in the popular vote but still only won a minority of the popular vote. A majority voted for parties that were, to varying degrees, anti-Brexit. But due to the lunacy of our electoral system a party which fails to command a majority of the publics support is given a massive majority within Parliament.

 

[Howardh]

Sat here overhearing a conversation on the table next..."things were so much better in 2015"!!
Hard to believe that 7 years ago counts as nostalgia and the good old days, but the way things are going, whether Brexit carries any blame or not, if folks felt things were better then they might be prepared to vote to bring them back.

Just a thought!

 

[Enthusiast]

And even if you do accept that Brexit must happen because 37% of adult British citizens wanted it, the referendum did not actually ask people whether they wanted to stop EU citizens emigrating here.

The anti-immigration policy and lack of customs union are what I resent most about Brexit. As I said above, if we were in a Norway-style arrangement I would accept the result and never whinge about it again...

There is nothing to prevent EU citizens settling in the UK. They simply have to apply for leave to remain in the same way as anybody from the rest of the world does. Freedom of movement represented a discriminatory immigration policy based solely on nationality. If the UK operated a policy that allowed unfettered access for people from, say, Asian nations, but insisted on some sort of visa process for those from African nations there would be justified outcry. But that's exactly what the EU's freedom of movement scheme provided for.

It's presumptuous to assume that people who voted for Brexit were "anti-immigration". Most of my acquaintances were anti-uncontrolled immigration. They were uncomfortable with the idea that 500m people had the inalienable right to settle here and assume all the rights and privileges of those already here. A "Norway-style" arrangement would not have addressed this problem and, in this and many other respects, would have been no Brexit at all.

The "four-fifths of five-eighths of F-all" argument has been played out many times since June 2016. The 75% requirement does not hold much water. It could mean the wishes of 74.9% of those voting for the proposition would be ignored in favour of the 25.1% who voted against it. There is no justification for such a "super majority" requirement and it seems strange that you criticise a proposition being carried by a 52:48 majority but would be quite happy to see that same proposition rejected when three times as many people voted for it as against. I suppose it depends on which side of the argument you sit. Nobody asked the UK electorate whether they wanted to join the European Economic Community and certainly nobody asked them whether they agreed to the various stages of metamorphosis that led to the EU today. But you suggest that a 75% majority is necessary in order to leave. As for the idea that the entire electorate of the EU should be consulted when considering whether an individual sovereign nation should leave, well..

 

[edwin_m]

Nobody asked the UK electorate whether they wanted to join the European Economic Community

True but disingenuous. There was a referendum a couple of years later that confirmed support for membership.

The two main problems in 1996 were, firstly, the gross lies told by the Leave campaign, and secondly the lack of detail of what leaving would mean or indeed what the country would aim to get from the deal. For both reason some people who voted to leave would probably not have done so if they had known how it was going to end up. And it means that many of us who didn't want to leave feel that we have been railroaded and the public deceived. Together with the crowing by the "winners" and the total lack of any actual benefits to match the many downsides, that leaves many people feeling cheated and deceived.

 

[Peterthegreat]

True but disingenuous. There was a referendum a couple of years later that confirmed support for membership.

The two main problems in 1996 were, firstly, the gross lies told by the Leave campaign, and secondly the lack of detail of what leaving would mean or indeed what the country would aim to get from the deal. For both reason some people who voted to leave would probably not have done so if they had known how it was going to end up. And it means that many of us who didn't want to leave feel that we have been railroaded and the public deceived. Together with the crowing by the "winners" and the total lack of any actual benefits to match the many downsides, that leaves many people feeling cheated and deceived.

Do you mean 2016?

 

[edwin_m]

Do you mean 2016?

Oops, must have been thinking 1975 and split the difference.

 

[Enthusiast]

True but disingenuous. There was a referendum a couple of years later that confirmed support for membership.

Indeed. But for continued membership of an organisation that bears no resemblance to today's EU. The successive treaties that changed that organisation so fundamentally had a profound impact on its members and their constitutions. Had there been a referendum on one or more of those - especially Lisbon - it is very likely the UK electorate may well have given its agreement. Had they done so, the case for a further referendum on membership would have been very much weaker. Instead successive governments toughed it out, despite there being an increasing clamour for the question of the UK's membership to be put to a vote.

People who say they were deceived by the referendum campaigns (of both sides) have only themselves to blame. Mature voters should realise that all politicians tell them lies. It's the voters' job to sort fact from fiction. For my part I decided in 1992 that if ever given the chance I would vote to leave. Nothing that anybody told me in either campaign persuaded me to change my mind (nor was it likely to). I have no real interest in either the advantages of membership or the disadvantages of leaving. I simply loathe the EU, I detest the attitude of the people who run it, I abhor its "democratic deficit" it displays and the contempt it demonstrates towards anybody who shows resistance to the wretched "European Project."

Brexit turned out near enough as I expected - a concerted effort by the EU to make life as difficult as possible for the UK, despite the "withdrawal agreement" that was supposed to remove most of the friction. I did not expect 40-odd years of integration to be undone in a couple of weeks and I expected problems. What I did not expect was the vigorous, almost maniacal campaign to overturn the result by this country's politicians. It showed many of them in their true light as they showed utter contempt for the 17m people who voted against their wishes (and indeed their expectations). Much of the division and rancour was fuelled by that campaign and the leaving process went on for far too long. Article 50 should have been triggered at the end of June 2016 and we should have left two years later.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Indeed. But for continued membership of an organisation that bears no resemblance to today's EU. The successive treaties that changed that organisation so fundamentally had a profound impact on its members and their constitutions. Had there been a referendum on one or more of those - especially Lisbon - it is very likely the UK electorate may well have given its agreement. Had they done so, the case for a further referendum on membership would have been very much weaker. Instead successive governments toughed it out, despite there being an increasing clamour for the question of the UK's membership to be put to a vote.

People who say they were deceived by the referendum campaigns (of both sides) have only themselves to blame. Mature voters should realise that all politicians tell them lies. It's the voters' job to sort fact from fiction. For my part I decided in 1992 that if ever given the chance I would vote to leave. Nothing that anybody told me in either campaign persuaded me to change my mind (nor was it likely to). I have no real interest in either the advantages of membership or the disadvantages of leaving. I simply loathe the EU, I detest the attitude of the people who run it, I abhor its "democratic deficit" it displays and the contempt it demonstrates towards anybody who shows resistance to the wretched "European Project."

Brexit turned out near enough as I expected - a concerted effort by the EU to make life as difficult as possible for the UK, despite the "withdrawal agreement" that was supposed to remove most of the friction. I did not expect 40-odd years of integration to be undone in a couple of weeks and I expected problems. What I did not expect was the vigorous, almost maniacal campaign to overturn the result by this country's politicians. It showed many of them in their true light as they showed utter contempt for the 17m people who voted against their wishes (and indeed their expectations). Much of the division and rancour was fuelled by that campaign and the leaving process went on for far too long. Article 50 should have been triggered at the end of June 2016 and we should have left two years later.

Brexit turned out as I expected it. The UK Government choosing an extreme option.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. But for continued membership of an organisation that bears no resemblance to today's EU. The successive treaties that changed that organisation so fundamentally had a profound impact on its members and their constitutions. Had there been a referendum on one or more of those - especially Lisbon - it is very likely the UK electorate may well have given its agreement. Had they done so, the case for a further referendum on membership would have been very much weaker. Instead successive governments toughed it out, despite there being an increasing clamour for the question of the UK's membership to be put to a vote.

You're responding to a point I didn't make and ignoring the one that you quoted.

People who say they were deceived by the referendum campaigns (of both sides) have only themselves to blame. Mature voters should realise that all politicians tell them lies. It's the voters' job to sort fact from fiction.

Most voters wouldn't have had the time or inclination to go into the issues. There's a tendency to trust people say that they believe are trustworthy, and Boris Johnson seemed trustworthy to many at the time but today most realise he is a serial liar. Promises may be made and not kept, but that's a bit different from simply denying the facts as they stand (the figure on the bus, Turkey joining the EU). That is the territory of Trump and Putin.

 

[RT4038]

Brexit turned out as I expected it. The UK Government choosing an extreme option.

To Brexiteers, Brexit was not Brexit if it wasn't out of observing EU laws, ECJ jurisdiction and inward freedom of movement, and achieving that meant the Single Market and therefore outward freedom of movement gone etc. I would not say that was an extreme option - it was the only option for all intents and purposes. [ What possible advantage would it be to the UK to be out of the EU but observing all their laws?]

I have never met anyone who wanted Brexit who has expressed the opinion that merely not being a member of the EU, but observing EU laws/ECJ Jurisdiction/ single market/freedom of movement, would have met their aspirations.

However, I have met plenty who would have liked a more favourable leave deal, retaining more of the bits that benefitted them but without the bits that they perceived didn't. Unfortunately it was not possible to negotiate that.

Brexit turned out near enough as I expected - a concerted effort by the EU to make life as difficult as possible for the UK, despite the "withdrawal agreement" that was supposed to remove most of the friction. I did not expect 40-odd years of integration to be undone in a couple of weeks and I expected problems. What I did not expect was the vigorous, almost maniacal campaign to overturn the result by this country's politicians. It showed many of them in their true light as they showed utter contempt for the 17m people who voted against their wishes (and indeed their expectations). Much of the division and rancour was fuelled by that campaign and the leaving process went on for far too long. Article 50 should have been triggered at the end of June 2016 and we should have left two years later.

I felt your post resonated until this. You expected problems. I am unsure why you would not have expected the political class to be in turmoil with the result of overturning the status quo. Whilst we elect them to represent us, we also elect them for their views. The phrase 'utter contempt' is hyperbole. The result was 52:48. Going hell-for-leather for the tiny majority view would have shown 'utter contempt' for the huge minority view, which they would likely to have held anyway as it represented the establishment status quo. The division and rancour was inevitable in view of the country and political parties being split down the middle.

Most voters wouldn't have had the time or inclination to go into the issues. There's a tendency to trust people say that they believe are trustworthy, and Boris Johnson seemed trustworthy to many at the time but today most realise he is a serial liar. Promises may be made and not kept, but that's a bit different from simply denying the facts as they stand (the figure on the bus, Turkey joining the EU). That is the territory of Trump and Putin.

Sorry, but on such an issue one does need to keep informed, and not trust everything the protagonists say. The 'Remain' campaign was a damp squib- almost to being apologetic. I know it is always easier to be against something (eg the EU) than for, but it was almost as if they didn't believe , or there was nothing to say. If the public had really felt deceived there would have been a resounding defeat for the 'Get Brexit done' party in 2019. But there wasn't.

Whatever, the deed is done. It is no good raking over those coals. It is now up to those who wish to rejoin the EU to start campaigning and negotiating; to convince the UK electorate that being in the EU is to their advantage over any disadvantages. In view of the complaints made about the Brexit campaigning, make sure that the disadvantages are stressed as much as the advantages. I think it will be found that campaigning is not so easy!

 

[nw1]

It's presumptuous to assume that people who voted for Brexit were "anti-immigration". Most of my acquaintances were anti-uncontrolled immigration. They were uncomfortable with the idea that 500m people had the inalienable right to settle here and assume all the rights and privileges of those already here.

But this right applies to EU countries such as France and Germany. If they can put up with it, why not us? It sounds like exceptionalism to me. And anyhow, freedom of movement means that we can also move to the continent with minimal bureaucracy. Freedom of movement benefits British citizens, not just EU/Schengen citizens.

I am also philosophically against regressive and backward policies in general, not just on this matter. The Conservative Party have taken away rights that both ourselves and EU citizens enjoyed for 30 years. It's turning the clock back and adding restrictions that did not exist in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.

A "Norway-style" arrangement would not have addressed this problem and, in this and many other respects, would have been no Brexit at all.

A "Norway-style" arrangement would have the advantage that the government could say they have "implemented Brexit" without implementing regressive and backwards policies. I say again, the referendum did not ask "Do you have a problem with EU citizens having free movement here?" That was purely something the Conservative Party did afterwards, based on a (possibly accurate) belief that a lot of Labour-to-Tory swing voters might have problems with immigration. So in other words, the hard Brexit of Johnson (and May) was purely in the name of the welfare of the Conservative Party, and a device for the Tories to gain more seats and/or stave off the threat from UKIP/Brexit Party/whatever Farage's project is called this month. In this respect, it has been successful - for now at least.

The "four-fifths of five-eighths of F-all" argument has been played out many times since June 2016. The 75% requirement does not hold much water. It could mean the wishes of 74.9% of those voting for the proposition would be ignored in favour of the 25.1% who voted against it.

? I don't understand this.

There is no justification for such a "super majority" requirement and it seems strange that you criticise a proposition being carried by a 52:48 majority but would be quite happy to see that same proposition rejected when three times as many people voted for it as against.

I don't understand that argument. If 75% of people voted for Brexit, that would be a clear mandate and remainers wouldn't be complaining nearly as much.

Also I never said 75%. What I said was 60%. Quite different. Large enough to be a clear majority. Or, alternatively, 50% of all adult UK residents (whether they voted or not). Or, alternatively again, a Norway-style arrangement if the Leave score was between 50% and 60%.

The views of remainers have been completely and utterly ignored by the Conservative governments of May and Johnson, even though almost as many people voted remain as did leave. That is not acceptable. The outcome is certainly not the compromise outcome that would befit a result that was basically a tie. It is a self-serving outcome implemented purely in the interests of the Conservative Party.

I suppose it depends on which side of the argument you sit. Nobody asked the UK electorate whether they wanted to join the European Economic Community and certainly nobody asked them whether they agreed to the various stages of metamorphosis that led to the EU today. But you suggest that a 75% majority is necessary in order to leave. As for the idea that the entire electorate of the EU should be consulted when considering whether an individual sovereign nation should leave, well..

I didn't mean the entire electorate of the EU. I meant EU citizens resident in the UK at the time of the referendum. Quite different.

Why should a law-abiding hard-working EU citizen who has lived here for 10 years and will be affected by Brexit more profoundly not be allowed to vote?

And that's before we consider the lies told by the Leave campaign. "EU citizens' rights will not be affected". So why do they have to apply for settled status? Quite aside from the unsavoury characters that make up the Leave campaign (Farage, Cummings and Banks, particularly).

To Brexiteers, Brexit was not Brexit if it wasn't out of observing EU laws, ECJ jurisdiction and inward freedom of movement, and achieving that meant the Single Market and therefore outward freedom of movement gone etc. I would not say that was an extreme option - it was the only option for all intents and purposes. [ What possible advantage would it be to the UK to be out of the EU but observing all their laws?]

I have never met anyone who wanted Brexit who has expressed the opinion that merely not being a member of the EU, but observing EU laws/ECJ Jurisdiction/ single market/freedom of movement, would have met their aspirations.

But the main argument of more reasonable, less extreme Brexiters is 'we have to respect the referendum'. One can respect the referendum by 'not being a member of the EU, but observing EU laws/ECJ Jurisdiction/ single market/freedom of movement', so why did we not do it? (rhetorical question, I have answered it above).

I felt your post resonated until this. You expected problems. I am unsure why you would not have expected the political class to be in turmoil with the result of overturning the status quo. Whilst we elect them to represent us, we also elect them for their views. The phrase 'utter contempt' is hyperbole. The result was 52:48. Going hell-for-leather for the tiny majority view would have shown 'utter contempt' for the huge minority view, which they would likely to have held anyway as it represented the establishment status quo. The division and rancour was inevitable in view of the country and political parties being split down the middle.

Exactly. And May and Johnson have shown utter contempt for the views of remainers. We don't matter to them, because many of us either a) will never vote Conservative or b) always will vote Conservative, so don't need to be persuaded (thinking of Home Counties Tory Remainers here)

Whatever, the deed is done. It is no good raking over those coals. It is now up to those who wish to rejoin the EU to start campaigning and negotiating; to convince the UK electorate that being in the EU is to their advantage over any disadvantages. In view of the complaints made about the Brexit campaigning, make sure that the disadvantages are stressed as much as the advantages. I think it will be found that campaigning is not so easy!

I think a good plan is to start by not attempting to rejoin the EU, but instead to bring back at least some of the rights we enjoyed under the EU. Single market (which we have had since 1973 - so we are turning the clock back 50 years by leaving it), and at least some freedom of movement. One hope I do have is that the middle and younger generations, who have been used to freedom of movement through most or all of their adult lives, will be more pro-restoring-freedom-of-movement so demographics alone might shift the vote that way as time goes by.

I am also hopeful that Keir Starmer, while not an out-and-out rejoiner, will want to build warmer relations with the EU than Johnson, Raab, Patel and the other hardcore Brexiters who dominate the current government.

 

[RT4038]

But this right applies to EU countries such as France and Germany. If they can put up with it, why not us? It sounds like exceptionalism to me. And anyhow, freedom of movement means that we can also move to the continent with minimal bureaucracy. Freedom of movement benefits British citizens, not just EU/Schengen citizens.

Nothing wrong with exceptionalism. Imagine European countries being all the same. Oh wait... isn't that what the 'European Project' is aiming for? Perhaps France & Germany have been affected in different ways, or not as much. Perhaps they have different mechanisms of control, the sort of which would not be politically acceptable here. Can't have some exceptionalism but not others.

A "Norway-style" arrangement would have the advantage that the government could say they have "implemented Brexit" without implementing regressive and backwards policies.

Why would you think this kind of political posturing would be acceptable? About as much as telling Remainers that the UK is still geographically in Europe so that's all right then? It is pretty obvious that 'leaving the EU' meant 'not subject to EU laws including inward freedom of movement'. [Why would it mean anything else?] Nothing else could be negotiated that didn't also mean out of Single Market, and out of outward Freedom of Movement.

The views of remainers have been completely and utterly ignored by the Conservative governments of May and Johnson, even though almost as many people voted remain as did leave. That is not acceptable. The outcome is certainly not the compromise outcome that would befit a result that was basically a tie. It is a self-serving outcome implemented purely in the interests of the Conservative Party.

There was virtually no room for maneouvre - it was pretty much a binary choice - subject to EU laws or not subject. The EU (quite understandably) would not negotiate to pick and choose. In which case it was either completely and utterly ignore the Brexiteers or completely and utterly ignore the Remainers. Unless you have some idea of a compromise solution that would have been acceptable (taken in the round) to both UK factions and the EU, because I can't think of one.

Why should a law-abiding hard-working EU citizen who has lived here for 10 years and will be affected by Brexit more profoundly not be allowed to vote?

Because they are not UK citizens. Any more than a law-abiding hard working UK citizen living in Romania cannot vote there.

I think a good plan is to start by not attempting to rejoin the EU, but instead to bring back at least some of the rights we enjoyed under the EU. Single market (which we have had since 1973 - so we are turning the clock back 50 years by leaving it), and at least some freedom of movement. One hope I do have is that the middle and younger generations, who have been used to freedom of movement through most or all of their adult lives, will be more pro-restoring-freedom-of-movement so demographics alone might shift the vote that way as time goes by.

I am also hopeful that Keir Starmer, while not an out-and-out rejoiner, will want to build warmer relations with the EU than Johnson, Raab, Patel and the other hardcore Brexiters who dominate the current government.

There will be little change until the main players in this saga, on both sides of the Channel, have moved on / retired etc. Maybe then there will be some chance of some bilateral agreements on the lines that you suggest, acceptable to both sides.

There will still be many of the middle and younger generations to whom freedom of movement meant nothing or very little, and/or they would feel worked to their disadvantage. It would also be wrong to completely and utterly ignore their views and wishes either.

 

[nw1]

Brexit turned out as I expected it. The UK Government choosing an extreme option.

There was a time when I actually thought Brexit would mean merely a Norway-style deal. Perhaps because I thought Cameron would stay on as PM and, for all his faults, he's not really an isolationist. As soon as May came in and talk of restricting freedom of movement began, I knew we were on a downward spiral.

Nothing wrong with exceptionalism. Imagine European countries being all the same. Oh wait... isn't that what the 'European Project' is aiming for? Perhaps France & Germany have been affected in different ways, or not as much. Perhaps they have different mechanisms of control, the sort of which would not be politically acceptable here. Can't have some exceptionalism but not others.

I don't think being in the EU means that all European countries are culturally the same. I have visited several EU countries in the past 10 years or so and they are still culturally very different. In fact, I would argue that under the EU, the UK had more national character. Other - perhaps mostly market - forces have led to the UK becoming much more anodyne and less characterful in the past 5-10 years. In the 1990s and 2000s the UK was a considerably more characterful place - and we were in the EU.

What I meant by exceptionalism was the belief that the UK has some kind of moral right to consider freedom of movement 'bad' when other European countries do not. I didn't mean being allowed to display national character.

Why would you think this kind of political posturing would be acceptable? About as much as telling Remainers that the UK is still geographically in Europe so that's all right then? It is pretty obvious that 'leaving the EU' meant 'not subject to EU laws including inward freedom of movement'. [Why would it mean anything else?] Nothing else could be negotiated that didn't also mean out of Single Market, and out of outward Freedom of Movement.

Because the referendum didn't ask that. The main 'moral' argument Brexiters have is that we have to respect the referendum. We can respect the referendum by leaving, but without any of the hardcore stuff.

There was virtually no room for maneouvre - it was pretty much a binary choice - subject to EU laws or not subject. The EU (quite understandably) would not negotiate to pick and choose. In which case it was either completely and utterly ignore the Brexiteers or completely and utterly ignore the Remainers. Unless you have some idea of a compromise solution that would have been acceptable (taken in the round) to both UK factions and the EU, because I can't think of one.

Would the Norway-style deal not have worked?

I would first have gone for a Norway-style deal, and if the EU objected, I would then go for maintaining the customs union. Then, if the EU had rejected that, I'd have gone for a second referendum on the argument that 'we tried to do Brexit, but we have problems achieving a sensible deal, so we'll have to ask you to choose between the status quo and a restrictive, hardcore version of Brexit'. One has to remember that a good number of people in the first who voted Leave might have genuinely believed that Leave meant 'leaving the bureaucracy of the EU, but still retaining freedom of movement and the single market', so that kind of 'soft Brexiter' would essentially have been deceived. Such 'soft Brexiters' might not have cared too much either way, and might prefer to remain rather than lose automatic freedom of movement and trade.

The second referendum would make it clear that Leave meant leaving the single market and restricting freedom of movement, both ways, and all that entails.

Because they are not UK citizens. Any more than a law-abiding hard working UK citizen living in Romania cannot vote there.

But is that moral? Why should a UK citizen's views on the matter be more important than that of an EU citizen that lives here long term? Personally I don't consider that fair. But I also consider it fundamentally unfair that an EU - or elsewhere in the world - citizen resident in the UK long term should not be allowed to vote in general elections. (And I don't consider it fair the other way regarding UK citizens long-term resident in EU countries or the rest of the world, either, for point of clarification).

There will be little change until the main players in this saga, on both sides of the Channel, have moved on / retired etc. Maybe then there will be some chance of some bilateral agreements on the lines that you suggest, acceptable to both sides.

And that is why we need to ditch Johnson, Patel and co. Even if it's with a batch of more moderate, Cameron-like Conservatives. Not great but at least something of a move forward.

 

[Noddy]

Guys and gals I say this with a heavy heart (as a remainer) but you all need to move on. It’s over. The only thing to do now is to campaign for (or against) rejoining (starting with the bits that might be palatable to all sides) the various institutions.

 

[nw1]

Complaining people had changed their minds about Brexit doesn't stand up or the Tories would not have won in 2019 so convincingly. Remainers could have voted LibDem or Labour.

Not necessarily. Could have just been the split opposition vote (allowing Johnson to get in by default). Compare US 2020, in which the anti-Trump vote was not split - yet Trump won a considerably higher % of the US vote in 2020 than Johnson did the UK vote in 2019.

That and the anti-Corbyn factor kicking in. For example, I doubt the Tories held Winchester, Guildford or Esher because those towns are full of rampant Brexiters. More likely, people were (rightly or wrongly) worried about Corbyn and saw the Tories as slightly more palatable.

Though of course General Elections are a terrible way of deciding a single issue as for every voter that voted for party because of policy X another will be holding their nose and voting for them because of policy Y despite not liking policy X. There's also issues around the disastrous state of the Labour Party generally under Corbyn (policy wise they weren't a million miles away from the electorate but Corbyn was almost unbelievably toxic) not exactly presenting an especially enticing prospect.

Then there's the problem that it was convincing in terms of seats and it even managed to be more convincing than previous elections in the popular vote but still only won a minority of the popular vote. A majority voted for parties that were, to varying degrees, anti-Brexit. But due to the lunacy of our electoral system a party which fails to command a majority of the publics support is given a massive majority within Parliament.

Exactly this. Probably the best analysis of the 2019 result I have seen.

A soft Brexit was possible. The Conservative party set red lines, including blocking the free movement of labour. At that point, a Norway-style arrangement was out.

And if that is indeed the reason for the lack of a Norway option, rather than the EU denying it to us, then May and Johnson must indeed be unilaterally condemned for their self-serving actions.

 

[REVUpminster]

Why were we not given a referendum on the Maestricht Treaty. I mean one; not keep voting till we get it right. It's what cost John Major his job.

As for Brexit lies; the EU army keeps raising it's head. It's a pity Nigel Farage didn't realise how Germany had been neutered or perhaps he did. All those euros keeping Putin's war machine going.

 

[nw1]

Why were we not given a referendum on the Maestricht Treaty. I mean one; not keep voting till we get it right. It's what cost John Major his job.

I think what cost John Major his job was people having enough of 18 years of the Tories and wanting a change, together with repeated sleaze scandals, the insensitive handling of the early 90s recession, and the feeling that many senior Tories (but not Major himself, to be fair) did not care enough in general about people who had fallen on hard times.

Remember he was replaced by Tony Blair, who was even more EU-friendly.

For the record, I don't actually mind John Major. He was the only Tory leader after Heath that I would consider decent. The problem was with his cabinet colleagues. Some of the people in his government seemed to completely lack empathy with people suffering hard times - Lilley, Howard, Redwood, I'm looking at you. So small wonder that many of us wanted to throw out people like these at the first available opportunity.

 

[edwin_m]

To Brexiteers, Brexit was not Brexit if it wasn't out of observing EU laws, ECJ jurisdiction and inward freedom of movement, and achieving that meant the Single Market and therefore outward freedom of movement gone etc. I would not say that was an extreme option - it was the only option for all intents and purposes. [ What possible advantage would it be to the UK to be out of the EU but observing all their laws?]

That may be your view but you certainly aren't speaking for all who voted to leave, and if just 4% of them didn't hold that view then the result in 2016 is open to question. There are plenty of other options that do not involve EU membership but enjoy some of the benefits. Just ask the Norwegians.

 

[RT4038]

But is that moral? Why should a UK citizen's views on the matter be more important than that of an EU citizen that lives here long term? Personally I don't consider that fair. But I also consider it fundamentally unfair that an EU - or elsewhere in the world - citizen resident in the UK long term should not be allowed to vote in general elections. (And I don't consider it fair the other way regarding UK citizens long-term resident in EU countries or the rest of the world, either, for point of clarification).

Yes it is moral. If you want to take part in citizens elections you must apply and go through the hoops of being a citizen. It is the usual way around the world - no squatters rights.

Guys and gals I say this with a heavy heart (as a remainer) but you all need to move on. It’s over. The only thing to do now is to campaign for (or against) rejoining (starting with the bits that might be palatable to all sides) the various institutions.

Quite. You never know, might come up with something acceptable, but probably not until the dust has settled and the characters on both sides of the Channel have moved on / retired.

Would the Norway-style deal not have worked?

I would first have gone for a Norway-style deal, and if the EU objected, I would then go for maintaining the customs union. Then, if the EU had rejected that, I'd have gone for a second referendum on the argument that 'we tried to do Brexit, but we have problems achieving a sensible deal, so we'll have to ask you to choose between the status quo and a restrictive, hardcore version of Brexit'. One has to remember that a good number of people in the first who voted Leave might have genuinely believed that Leave meant 'leaving the bureaucracy of the EU, but still retaining freedom of movement and the single market', so that kind of 'soft Brexiter' would essentially have been deceived. Such 'soft Brexiters' might not have cared too much either way, and might prefer to remain rather than lose automatic freedom of movement and trade.

The second referendum would make it clear that Leave meant leaving the single market and restricting freedom of movement, both ways, and all that entails.

Because a Norway style deal didn't release the Uk from EU Bureaucracy, ECJ and inward FoM , which is what the Brexit protagonists wanted. Probably in particular because of the noises the EU were making about regulating and taxing the City of London casino.

I think you need to look at this from a Brexiteers viewpoint: they wanted Brexit without EU Bureaucracy etc. They were not looking for anything less, so any scheme would have to get that and nothing the EU had on offer would (understandably) give the UK that kind of freedom. All of your suggestions might have taken Brexit from their grasp, so there was no way they were going to go that route. There was only a small window of opportunity. 'Get it done' and quickly, otherwise the opportunity would pass in this generation. Vote them out if you want, but they have done their job which won't be easily reversed for quite some time.

That may be your view but you certainly aren't speaking for all who voted to leave, and if just 4% of them didn't hold that view then the result in 2016 is open to question. There are plenty of other options that do not involve EU membership but enjoy some of the benefits. Just ask the Norwegians.

Of course it is my view, and I'm not speaking for all who voted for leave. But then neither are you speaking for those who do not want to be in the EU but voted Remain because they foresaw the amount of hassle leaving would be, in one way or another! Works both ways.

As @Noddy remarks in post #3773, it is over now anyway - no point crying over spilt milk. The Norwegians may well enjoy some benefits, but this comes with some downsides too. It all depends what sort of trade-offs you are prepared to accept.

 

[REVUpminster]

I think what cost John Major his job was people having enough of 18 years of the Tories and wanting a change, together with repeated sleaze scandals, the insensitive handling of the early 90s recession, and the feeling that many senior Tories (but not Major himself, to be fair) did not care enough in general about people who had fallen on hard times.

Remember he was replaced by Tony Blair, who was even more EU-friendly.

For the record, I don't actually mind John Major. He was the only Tory leader after Heath that I would consider decent. The problem was with his cabinet colleagues. Some of the people in his government seemed to completely lack empathy with people suffering hard times - Lilley, Howard, Redwood, I'm looking at you. So small wonder that many of us wanted to throw out people like these at the first available opportunity.

Didn't answer why we were not given a referendum.

John Major-Edwina Currie. Who knew? MI5? Personal Protection Officers?

 

[nw1]

Yes it is moral. If you want to take park in citizens elections you must apply and go through the hoops of being a citizen. It is the usual way around the world - no squatters rights.

It may be the law, and it may be (sadly) normal - but I take issue with it being moral. And I don't think it's particularly kind to use terms like "squatter" to describe people living here long-term.

Because a Norway style deal didn't release the Uk from EU Bureaucracy, ECJ and inward FoM , which is what the Brexit protagonists wanted. Probably in particular because of the noises the EU were making about regulating and taxing the City of London casino.

That shows the outcome was not implemented for good moral reasons though - doing things for the benefit of wealthy City types isn't exacly a sound reason to implement a hard Brexit on moral grounds. Just makes the outcome seem even more unacceptable, IMO.

As @Noddy remarks in post #3773, it is over now anyway - no point crying over spilt milk.

Except if we all just put up and shut up, there will be no motivation to thaw relations with the EU later. Anti-Brexit British people need to demonstrate to the rest of Europe that we are not all in agreement about Brexit, and some of us think it was a monumentally stupid idea and still deeply resent it - otherwise the rest of Europe might consider us an isolationist country and relations will be less likely to improve.