• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Brexit matters

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
When Trump, Putin and Farage agree that something is a good idea. It's probably a bad idea!
Must admit that was a strong argument for me personally. Basically all our friends and allies around the world, who made statements, were in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. All our enemies were in favour of Brexit. That should have told people something...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
When Trump, Putin and Farage agree that something is a good idea. It's probably a bad idea!

But equally you could argue that if Tony Blair is on one side of the argument, and Tony Benn on the other, it is usually better to go with the Tony Benn side :)

One of the key problems I found with Brexit is that there were an awful lot of people I really didn't like on both sides of the argument!
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
But equally you could argue that if Tony Blair is on one side of the argument, and Tony Benn on the other, it is usually better to go with the Tony Benn side :)

One of the key problems I found with Brexit is that there were an awful lot of people I really didn't like on both sides of the argument!
Putting aside that cretin Blair. Yes, if there was a coherent movement for a more (scary word warning;)) socialist Brexit that was going to work better for the ordinary person than the status quo, and the departure was to be conducted in a more civil and organised way emphasising cooperation then I might have voted for it. But instead we got well, whatever that was a few years ago. And I think it weakens us and the EU in my opinion.

In my view with referendums the people should be told the truth and likelihoods of what may or may not happen given, and this all links in with the media having to be honest as well. Slightly utopian maybe, but not beyond the realms of possibility.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
In my view with referendums the people should be told the truth and likelihoods of what may or may not happen given, and this all links in with the media having to be honest as well. Slightly utopian maybe, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

I trust you will be sending this to Nicola Sturgeon.
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
I trust you will be sending this to Nicola Sturgeon.
Yes - it applies to everyone anywhere.

Otherwise we have an angry atomised world full of lies and fear. In years to come the same people will feel angry and not listened to as do now. And the real threats we ALL face (climate catastrophe, nuclear disaster) will continue and burn or wash us out of our little bubbles like the little specks we are, regardless of what we think we are in our own minds.

I'm not going to get into nationalism as cooperation is the way forward. Although I do prefer SNP's more left leaning stance than say a Farage.

But going back to cooperation to the real, urgent issues we face. There was a very good documentary on the BBC (they usually produce a good one twice yearly) called 'Big Oil vs The World' and read the recent statement from UN Chief Antonio Gutterez regarding the cowardly, stupid and irrational nuclear threat for evidence of what I believe everyone should be concerned about, rather than the age old 'hate thy neighbour' tripe.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
IF:
In 2016, the UK voted to join the European Union after a democratic vote having never been in. In 2021 the transition period was over, and by the middle of 2022 travel was much more difficult, inflation soaring, energy bills through the roof, cross-channel immigrants in dinghies rising, farmers losing subsidies and packing it in, goods being late, or unable to be transported at all buried under red tape and paperwork, shortage of key workers such as doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers etc...

As a anti-EUropean I think I'd be wanting my vote back as I didn't vote for that, but can't have it becasue it's "undemocratic"?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
IF:
In 2016, the UK voted to join the European Union after a democratic vote having never been in. In 2021 the transition period was over, and by the middle of 2022 travel was much more difficult, inflation soaring, energy bills through the roof, cross-channel immigrants in dinghies rising, farmers losing subsidies and packing it in, goods being late, or unable to be transported at all buried under red tape and paperwork, shortage of key workers such as doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers etc...

As a anti-EUropean I think I'd be wanting my vote back as I didn't vote for that, but can't have it becasue it's "undemocratic"?
I'm struggling to get the point you're attempting to make...
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
I'm struggling to get the point you're attempting to make...
Things are going horribly wrong yet we are denied another vote (say to join the single market) yet if it were the other way round, if we had voted to join the EU in 2016 (never mind voted to stay in) and this was the mess we were in, Brexiters would be demanding we overturn the referendum.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Things are going horribly wrong yet we are denied another vote (say to join the single market) yet if it were the other way round, if we had voted to join the EU in 2016 (never mind voted to stay in) and this was the mess we were in, Brexiters would be demanding we overturn the referendum.
Ah, okay. It was the "want my vote back" part that confused me.
 

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
It was 1992 when it was signed. Importantly however, it gave the UK a lot of opt outs, so that isn't a good comparison, as it gave the UK many concessions over other EU members.

This seemed to have been the best deal the UK has ever had from the EU, now we are no longer a part of it, the UK seems to have come off far worse since leaving.

And where is Cameron nowadays being as this is his mess that he created?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
IF:
In 2016, the UK voted to join the European Union after a democratic vote having never been in. In 2021 the transition period was over, and by the middle of 2022

... OK ...
travel was much more difficult,

*Some* travel is more difficult

inflation soaring,

Which has very little to do with Brexit

energy bills through the roof,

Which has almost nothing to do with Brexit

cross-channel immigrants in dinghies rising,

Which has almost nothing to do with Brexit

farmers losing subsidies and packing it in,

OK I'd accept losing subsidies may be a result of Brexit (But why are we subsidising farmers anyway? If we're saying that people running a business need subsidising, then shouldn't we be asking ourselves what has gone wrong with the market to cause them to need subsidies in the first place?).

As for, farmers packing it in ... that's very sad, but is that entirely because of Brexit? As I understand it, farmers have for a long time been under lots of pressure because of foreign competition, the buying power of large supermarkets, environmental regulation, growing crime levels, etc.

goods being late, or unable to be transported at all buried under red tape and paperwork,

All caused by Brexit? Mostly, supermarket shelves seem to be full. There was a shortage of building materials last year, and I'm told by my pharmacist that there's currently a shortage of some medicines, but my understanding is both of those are/were caused mainly by Covid. But I'll give you that border controls have caused problems.

shortage of key workers such as doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers etc...

And there wasn't a shortage of doctors and nurses before Brexit? I seem to recall that particular shortage has been ongoing for a very long time, and has been exacerbated recently by stuff including the extra pressures medical staff are under post Covid causing more people to leave. Again, it's possible Brexit has had a modest contributory impact though.

As a anti-EUropean I think I'd be wanting my vote back as I didn't vote for that, but can't have it becasue it's "undemocratic"?

In that scenario, the (hypothetical) pro-Europeans might quite reasonably suggest that you check what things have caused what before demanding your vote back! ;)
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Things are going horribly wrong yet we are denied another vote (say to join the single market) yet if it were the other way round, if we had voted to join the EU in 2016 (never mind voted to stay in) and this was the mess we were in, Brexiters would be demanding we overturn the referendum.

I wouldn't say that we were denied another vote.

We had general elections in 2017 and 2019, and it would have been possible to elect a government that promised to give the people another vote on whether the amend the nature of Brexit, or to cancel it entirely.

If the result of the 2019 election had been a hung parliament, it would have been quite likely that any deal negotiated would have to be put to a public vote.

We also have the possibility of electing a government in future that can change the nature of Brexit, or reverse it.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
... OK ...
*Some* travel is more difficult

Which has very little to do with Brexit

Which has almost nothing to do with Brexit

Which has almost nothing to do with Brexit

OK I'd accept losing subsidies may be a result of Brexit (But why are we subsidising farmers anyway? If we're saying that people running a business need subsidising, then shouldn't we be asking ourselves what has gone wrong with the market to cause them to need subsidies in the first place?).

As for, farmers packing it in ... that's very sad, but is that entirely because of Brexit? As I understand it, farmers have for a long time been under lots of pressure because of foreign competition, the buying power of large supermarkets, environmental regulation, growing crime levels, etc.

All caused by Brexit? Mostly, supermarket shelves seem to be full. There was a shortage of building materials last year, and I'm told by my pharmacist that there's currently a shortage of some medicines, but my understanding is both of those are/were caused mainly by Covid. But I'll give you that border controls have caused problems.

And there wasn't a shortage of doctors and nurses before Brexit? I seem to recall that particular shortage has been ongoing for a very long time, and has been exacerbated recently by stuff including the extra pressures medical staff are under post Covid causing more people to leave. Again, it's possible Brexit has had a modest contributory impact though.

In that scenario, the (hypothetical) pro-Europeans might quite reasonably suggest that you check what things have caused what before demanding your vote back! ;)
I didn't actually say all of those were caused by Brexit. I'm alluding to that is the situation we are in today. Point I'm trying to make is if we had joined, instead of left, and all of the above happened just as it is, all the pro-Brexit brigade would be full of "it's all the EU's fault, we should never have joined etc etc".

I wouldn't say that we were denied another vote.

We had general elections in 2017 and 2019, and it would have been possible to elect a government that promised to give the people another vote on whether the amend the nature of Brexit, or to cancel it entirely.

If the result of the 2019 election had been a hung parliament, it would have been quite likely that any deal negotiated would have to be put to a public vote.

We also have the possibility of electing a government in future that can change the nature of Brexit, or reverse it.
I'll give you that, general elections aren't referendums, they carry more weight; a referendum was advisory. Let's hope we get that election in Autumn, part Brexit and part which party is best to steer us through the cost of living crisis.

But back to your point about elections, the Tories won but not with a majority of votes, they won 43% of the vote so 57% didn't, so had it been a straight binary choice "Tory Hard Brexit or All the Others Soft" referendum, then soft (or remain) would have won by a larger margin than the first referendum!!
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I didn't actually say all of those were caused by Brexit. I'm alluding to that is the situation we are in today. Point I'm trying to make is if we had joined, instead of left, and all of the above happened just as it is, all the pro-Brexit brigade would be full of "it's all the EU's fault, we should never have joined etc etc".


I'll give you that, general elections aren't referendums, they carry more weight; a referendum was advisory. Let's hope we get that election in Autumn, part Brexit and part which party is best to steer us through the cost of living crisis.

But back to your point about elections, the Tories won but not with a majority of votes, they won 43% of the vote so 57% didn't, so had it been a straight binary choice "Tory Hard Brexit or All the Others Soft" referendum, then soft (or remain) would have won by a larger margin than the first referendum!!

The problem with interpreting the result of the 2019 election (or any election for that matter) is that you can't always determine the reason why people voted the way they did.

Some people (particularly round my way in the West Midlands) voted Conservative primarily to stop Jeremy Corbyn from getting anywhere near number 10, regardless of their views on Brexit.

Other people will have voted the way they did because of their views on the NHS or the economy.

We can see this in Nicola Sturgeon's statement that she will treat the 2024 UK general election as a referendum on Scottish independence if, as seems likely, the UK government refuses her permission to hold another referendum before then.

This will no doubt affect how some people vote, but you can't assume that everyone in Scotland who votes for the SNP in a general election supports independence, anymore that you can assume that someone who votes for a unionist party supports Scotland remaining in the UK.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
We can see this in Nicola Sturgeon's statement that she will treat the 2024 UK general election as a referendum on Scottish independence if, as seems likely, the UK government refuses her permission to hold another referendum before then.


This will no doubt affect how some people vote, but you can't assume that everyone in Scotland who votes for the SNP in a general election supports independence, anymore that you can assume that someone who votes for a unionist party supports Scotland remaining in the UK
More accurately she said that the SNP will campaign for that election on a single issue - independence. On that basis a vote for the SNP would be a vote for independence.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
More accurately she said that the SNP will campaign for that election on a single issue - independence. On that basis a vote for the SNP would be a vote for independence.

True, but it could mean that the SNP lose some votes from those people who want them to have a strong presence at Westminster, but not for Scotland to become independent.

And of course it could cause the SNP to gain some votes from people who might otherwise have voted for unionist parties.

The question is whether the SNP gain or lose votes by this strategy.

The SNP stance could also affect peoples voting intentions in England, in that some people will vote Conservative in order to lessen the possibility of having a minority Labour government propped up to some degree by the SNP. This was definitely an issue in the 2015 general election.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,641
I'll give you that, general elections aren't referendums, they carry more weight; a referendum was advisory. Let's hope we get that election in Autumn, part Brexit and part which party is best to steer us through the cost of living crisis.

But back to your point about elections, the Tories won but not with a majority of votes, they won 43% of the vote so 57% didn't, so had it been a straight binary choice "Tory Hard Brexit or All the Others Soft" referendum, then soft (or remain) would have won by a larger margin than the first referendum!!
When looking at a specific matter, I'd say a referendum carries more weight. You have the electorate's view on that subject, rather than their view on a basket of policies as in a general election.
The referendum was only advisory in that it didn't bind the government to a particular course of action. There is an argument that the UK cannot have binding referenda as Parliament is always sovereign, though I'd contend something like the 1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum, where the question was essentially to implement the 1978 Scotland Act is essentially binding. But setting aside whether it was legally binding, morally/politically it surely was? If Cameron had stood up in June 2016 and said it was too close to call and therefore the UK would be remaining there would have been uproar.
Unfortunately then trying to map voters of a party to a particular viewpoint is almost impossible, e.g. Labour voters are fairly split between Leavers and Remainers.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Of course, everything has been perfectly quiet since.

But whether you like it or not, the majority of people who voted in 2016 voted to leave the EU.

The problem with this is that the pro remain establishment did not expect to lose in 2016, and therefore had no plan as to what to do in this eventuality.

And we have been arguing about Brexit ever since.

Suppose there was a future Scottish independence referendum and the result was similar to the Brexit referendum (ie 52% of votes in favour of independence).

Imagine the uproar there would be if the UK government said that not enough people have voted in favour of independence, so we are not going to do anything.

You have to set the rules for a referendum beforehand, so that people can be clear about what they are voting for, and what the government is going to do after the result is declared.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
*Some* travel is more difficult
So is any travel better, i.e. enough to make it better on balance?


Which has almost nothing to do with Brexit (cross-channel immigrants in dinghies rising)
But was frequently reported to be a major reason for many leaver votes.


OK I'd accept losing subsidies may be a result of Brexit (But why are we subsidising farmers anyway? If we're saying that people running a business need subsidising, then shouldn't we be asking ourselves what has gone wrong with the market to cause them to need subsidies in the first place?).
That's ironic in a forum devoted to railways. ;)
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
But whether you like it or not, the majority of people who voted in 2016 voted to leave the EU.
Nobody is denying that. However exactly what 'leave' meant was never defined.
The problem with this is that the pro remain establishment did not expect to lose in 2016, and therefore had no plan as to what to do in this eventuality.

And we have been arguing about Brexit ever since.
Wait, wait, wait. The side that lost is responsible for the arguments, rather than the side that won?
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,641
Wait, wait, wait. The side that lost is responsible for the arguments, rather than the side that won?
Not so much the side that lost, as the government that called the referendum in the first place?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Not so much the side that lost, as the government that called the referendum in the first place?
That government was replaced pretty quickly - Cameron stepped down less than a month after the referendum, and the governments that replaced his have been responsible for what's happened since.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Nobody is denying that. However exactly what 'leave' meant was never defined.
Wait, wait, wait. The side that lost is responsible for the arguments, rather than the side that won?

What I really meant was the David Cameron's government should have defined what "leave" meant (ie. should we or should we not stay in the single market or customs union).

But the reason they never defined what "leave" meant is that they rather complacently expected to win the referendum, based on the concessions that they renegotiated with the EU.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
What I really meant was the David Cameron's government should have defined what "leave" meant (ie. should we or should we not stay in the single market or customs union).
I agree that would have been better for the country, but I can't imagine the Leave side would have gone along with that - it would be seen as trying to dictate the terms of our "independence" beforehand.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I agree that would have been better for the country, but I can't imagine the Leave side would have gone along with that - it would be seen as trying to dictate the terms of our "independence" beforehand.

This has implications for any future Scottish independence referendum.

No doubt the SNP will have a plan for what they think Scotland should look like after independence, and how they would settle all the issues, many of which are similar to those in the Brext negotiations.

How realistic that plan is, and whether the UK government will agree to it, is open to question.

What the UK government will not do is negotiate the terms of indpendence before the question of whether Scotland should become indpendent in the first place has been settled.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,045
Wallonia scuppered the Canada/EU trade deal
I think to suggest that a similar outcome would have followed if a small part of the UK disagreed with an EU proposal is stretching two points:

1. The Canada/EU trade deal required the ratification of a Treaty and thus required unanimity among the 28 members. The Belgian constitution requires the agreement of all seven of its Parliaments before the national administration can ratify an international treaty. The Walloon Parliament refused to agree. So: Belgium could not agree to the treaty; the treaty could not be ratified. The UK has nothing in its constitution which prevents the government agreeing a treaty if, say, the Scottish Assembly does not concur. So such a situation could not have been replicated here. Whether or not the Scottish Assembly agreed to the proposal, if the UK government did, it would be agreed. The failure of the Canada deal had nothing to do with the way the EU works and everything to do with the way the Belgians organise their affairs.

2. The vast majority of measures introduced by the EU do not require treaty ratification. They are introduced under Directives which do not require unanimity.
 

Top