Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
That's fool's gold.
The SNP and Lib Dems were (still are) staunchly pro-Remain and it's extremely unlikely they would have co-operated with a Tory party that instigated the referendum and then campaigned for Brexit while being wagged by its tail from the ERG. Their minimum price for co-operation would have been the same as now, a second referendum, which is anathema to Tory Brexiteers since it risks losing Brexit altogether. You can't consolidate these two stances at all.
Labour was not interested in a deal that would see the Tories navigate Brexit unscathed and in power, by sharing the responsibility of the deal with them. Their interest was in a GE so Corbyn can hopefully capitalise on Tory extremism and failure, and sweep in with his social reform program which interests him more than Brexit. Not to mention how incredibly unlikely these two parties are to co-operate given their history, even before their recent moves towards more ideological extremes, unless there is some sort common enemy creating an equal existential threat to both (like say, Nazi Germany and WWII).
The reality is that this outcome was both highly predictable and largely unavoidable from the day A50 was triggered and passed as legislation, with a default status of no-deal Brexit unless a some sort deal is approved by parliament.
Actually I would doubt that, all remainers (as far as I can tell) want to remain and would not want anything less than the deal we have now as a full member of the EU; just as all leavers (again as far as I can tell) would see a so called 'soft Brexit' as BRINO. There maybe a number of people out there who didn't (couldn't or wouldn't) vote one way or the other but who would have settled for some compromise, but this is being wise after the event; unfortunately life's not like that.
Rightly or wrongly the nation participated in large numbers in a binary outcome referendum and that's what we are struck with, rightly or wrongly!
It was an advisory referendum. Ignoring that it should never have been called in the first place, the correct course of action following a result of Leave (especially one with a majority as slim as we had) would have been to actually have a look at how viable that option was for the country.
As it is, we've ended up with a "Leave at all costs" mentality, with the process started haphazardly, completely ignoring the very likely outcome of this making large swathes of the country much, much worse off.
You don't dismiss the 52% who voted leave, but if this wasn't just about Tory party politics, it would have been very easy for the government to outline a clear and concise plan of analysing the potential impacts and outcomes of leaving the EU (including potential deals and no deal options). Then, if it looked like something the country could benefit from (you know, with some proper planning), should the process of leaving begun. Had the analysis come back and almost universally showed it to be a bad idea (which it has), the government simply shelves the idea with a comment about potentially reviewing the situation in the future.
Cars wouldn't be taken of the road. There would just be a percentage decline in sales. Taking your BMW example, even if its a 50% decline. The UK would still contribute 4% - 5% of BMW car sales.
They could strategically make up for any decline in the current 9.6% of sales to the UK, in their biggest market China (at 25.7% contribution) or the USA.
Crazy to think that this tiny percentage will have enough impact on BMW, to have enough reason to influence the German governments decisions (which in itself is not guaranteed to work even if they try) . Which will then have an impact on the EU decisions (which again is also not guaranteed even if the German government are 100% on board with your theory).
I don't like those odds. Do you?
Don't worry. Us Norwegians (and probably the Danes too) will never let a opportunity to let others know how much better they can have it pass us by.
Loving it.
Baaaah
That government would, with 100% certainty, tank in the next elections as its opposition would brand it undemocratic and motivate voters to the polls far more effectively. The purpose of every party and every career politician is to get into and stay in power. Not to take one for the team, even with the "team" being the country, while trashing their reputation and that of the party's for a generation. Politics is not an exercise in altruism, it never has been. Such a government would very likely collapse from within before the end of its reign.
I was in partial agreement (anything about the DM excluded) up until the last sentence.
Unfortunately, you lost me completely when you said 'this is democracy at work'.
I will leave it to you to understand why that is completely incorrect.
Based upon the fact that the HoC rejected the TM Withdrawal Agreement three times, what makes you think that a 'soft brexit' was going to stand any chance of success.
The fundamental point is that a so called soft brexit would entail free movement of people etc etc.
Moreover, the shift to the right with Boris Johnson means that anything but the hardest brexit possible is what they intend to have.
Mainly why the thing should never have been called in the first place.
I disagree that it would decimate a party though, just the PM responsible for the decision (which would at worst put in on a par with what's happened to Cameron and May's political careers).
I also don't think you'd get any of the major parties running with the "undemocratic" line given that would mean Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP taking pseudo-Leave lines of logic. The only voices of dissent would be the same nationalist Tories and Brexit Party nutjobs we've already got.
You can disagree of course, but I think you're dreaming. The cases mentioned are not comparable. David Cameron walked instead of doing anything and May tried to implement the referendum result. Neither of them tried to consign it to the dustbin and yet both lost control of their party. Their party wouldn't sit idly by while the referendum result was being ignored and they were bleeding voters and MPs to UKIP (in Cameron's case) or TBP (May's case).
I don't think there's any credit to the notion that the Tories, or Labour in their place, could ignore the result and not pay a very heavy price as a party for a long time. Lib Dems failed on a tuition fee pledge, while being a junior partner, and went from 50 MPs down to 1. And if it hadn't been for the extra-ordinary circumstances created by the referendum result and them becoming the sole voice for Remain in the absence of others, they'd probably still be down to 1 MP.
The problem is you have an electorate who care more about Jeremy Corbyn not singing a national anthem loud enough than they do about a Prime Minister or MP openly lying or having no integrity. There is no concern for facts or wellbeing. The Tory members voted Boris in as leader because he is the "most charismatic"...if you were actually voting for democraticly correct or logical reasons this would be a very good reason not to vote for someone. You have people voting in a charismatic liar, because he is a charismatic liar, and then are expecting them to take a reasoned, fact based view in a general election.
The reality is the point at which most people will complain about brexit isn't when disadvantaged people can't get their medication or basic human rights, or when poor people can't afford food anymore, or when people lose their jobs. It'll be when their holiday to South Spain next year costs them an extra £200 and it isn't possible to simply lie about the reason why anymore.
People in this country are selfish and stubborn and spoilt, and increasingly just not very smart. At some point voting has become about reinforcing your own ignorance with a sense of justification, rather than what you think is the right thing.
I have not considered that before. How would that go about harming us?
I think it is probably too late to do that now. Fractions have developed, sides have been picked and politically this will have to be resolved by leaving in some shape or form. I don't think saying 'argh actually we think is a bad idea will wash' now.
Don't get me wrong it would be brilliant if we could halt it but only because I don't want to leave but I don't think you can dismiss 52%. It is still a 4% lead.
The EU elections highlighted how much support Farage and his Brexit party have. I am not sure that I want this issue going to the next General Election.
Presumably the 48% who voted to stay can be legitimately dismissed though, who cares about them, they lost.
This is what people don't seem to understand, if you don't like the government, you have an opportunity to get them out 5 years, or less, later. We could be stuck with this shit for 40 years, ffs!
If the Government lied to get into power, then you can call them to account at the next GE (look how the LibDem vote collapsed), we have been lied to to get this nonsense through, but there are no 2nd chances, it's tough shit if you don't agree.
All it would take is for France to start deliberately slowing down traffic at UK border crossings. If they start checking everything coming in and out, and generally be a bureaucratic pain in the ass, the UK is deeply fecked. Soon the trucks bringing in goods are backed up on the continent and backed up across the UK. That’s when our supply systems collapse and ‘scare stories’ like food and medicine shortages become reality.
What if I don't agree that my statement is incorrect. Detention?
.... But Seriously I think a vote is a vote.
I am aware of the rejections within Parliament and not just Theresa May's there were other options put on the table in March and the closest to agreement were Ken Clarke's - Calls for the UK to negotiate a permanent customs union with the EU after Brexit - and Margaret Beckett's - Confirmatory public vote - but nothing still resolved.
My reference to a soft brexit was based on where we were in 2016. Clearly that can not happen now as there are 2 warring fractions which have culminated in a new cabinet which is pro brexit and it is now looking more than likely that it will be a hard one.
What, like 12/13?
Last edited:
We have had this before have we not with the migrant checks and yes it slowed things down and there was shortage but we coped. I started to buy locally to feed my family and have done so ever since.
We would always use alternative transport - there are still ships and planes. We still have a very good relationship with the USA.
I am not dismissing this because it could well happen but I would like to think we could cope.
It is being stuck with this for the foreseeable future that concerns me as well. A lot of other issues we need to address.
I think all parties bend the truth a little.
You might have to help me with this.
Nah, you'll work it out eventually.
I don't agree. You're judging it by the polarisation you see now rather than the opportunity to find consensus that existed then. I think a number of remainers would have accepted an EEA type arrangement of the sort leavers were touting in the campaign. Aaron flipping Banks himself was talking about Norway, as was Dan Hannan. I grant it wouldn't have satisfied everyone, Brexiter or leaver. I certainly would have settled for that. Instead May decided to try to own Brexit as a Tory position and gave control to the right wing as result.
Fractions
Lads
Worrying times four the U.K...
The country is divided
A country divided
That's just simplifying a complex situation to its lowest terms.
What can I say, that's the lowest common detonator.
A country divided is just what lazy Journos say who can't be bothered to research.
That was before they realised what an EEA type arrangement meant, it just proves how badly thought out the whole thing was .
An EEA type arrangement is simply as you were but no vote - Farage, Hannan & co, cocked up seriously but it didn't matter to Brexit voters. Now they deny all knowledge of ever saying that.
You say that but (a) the Tory party didn't officially campaign to Leave. Cameron's position was Remain. And (b) May handed power to the ERG by boxing herself into a Tory only position and then losing her majority as voters recoiled. The argument for a second ref is because of the WA and because it contains aspects, like withdrawal from the single market and customs union, that weren't really debated during the campaign (leavers dismissing remain warnings, and then doing it anyway isn't the same as a debate). It is likely a softer WA, that deliberately was engineered to seek consensus in Parliament, would have made it much harder to argue for the need for a second referendum.
You say that and yet the result of all their current manoeuvring is to put them miles off in the polls weeks from a general election. A more talented PM than May - someone of Blair's skills maybe - would I think have found a way to make a more moderate position more appealing to Parliament, and kept the extremists at the extremes.
The outcome was highly likely from the moment May decided a narrow 52% majority meant she had carte blanche.
I know some will have a go at me but this video will only touch those who are already converted. To feel this woman's pain, you need empathy. Sad part is those who want to kick the foreigners out have none.
It will be player across Europe and the anti UK sentiment within the EU will only grow. Won't be long before other countries start kicking our people out.
Doing the Lord's work there. The Lord in this case being the Lord of Smugness
