"Exactly. Any democratic exercise only has legitimacy if what was promised before the deliberation is enacted after the deliberation."
We were told by the government, promised by the government, warned by the government, that we would leave the EU once and for all and forever if the leave box got the most ticks. Brexit means Brexit. What are Remainers confused about?
So you obviously agree the only legitimate outcome is the default position stated absolutely, unambiguously in the government's campaign leaflet, the only campaigner with the authority and obligation to abide by what it had promised - Brexit means Brexit.
Whatever might have been said or claimed by the leave campaign it had no authority to make promises as it had no capacity to deliver, it was not a parliamentary vote as you quite rightly imply, and whatever the outcome of the referendum it was not binding. So why bother worrying about what was, and was not, said by mere actors on both sides, apart from believing what the government said would happen given they were the only side with authority to deliver what it stated as a fact, rather than a promise - Brexit means Brexit.
The only grounds on which the government can get away with not leaving the EU lock stock and barrel is through a parliamentary decision supported by force of argument in favour of a "partial" Brexit, or "semi EU" membership, which is what ought to be the aim of the anti Brexit campaign.
The campaign seems unable or unwilling to reach a consensus on a viable alternative to what it calls a "Hard" Brexit. No more than the government is able to. In failing to produce any proposals that will change minds through force of argument, the anti Brexit campaign instead seeks to find synthetic legal arguments and spurious claims of what people didn't vote for, to undermine the legitimacy of a non binding referendum, a contradiction in terms, in order to block the parliamentary process they initiated.
A parliamentary process Remainers are fighting to subvert recognising the process will not achieve the aim of stopping Brexit entirely - something they think is legitimate based on the specious arguments that the referendum and the campaign wasn't "fair" - it doesn't matter IT WAS A NON BINDING REFERENDUM.
I think you may have had one of the ballot papers with the fairy tale misprint, along with happily ever after. The vote, sadly, from my perspective, was to leave the EU. Anything that meets that requirement, the UK no longer being a member of the European Union, complies with the wishes expressed in the non-binding referendum.
Brexit may mean Brexit. But, as British Exit is exit from the EU, membership of the EEA means Brexit, remaining within the Customs Union means Brexit, and the UK leaving the EU in March 2019 and seeking to rejoin in April 2019, or even after 60 seconds (probably on much worse terms), also means Brexit. Anything that means that the UK is not formally an member state is Brexit, even if it includes membership of EU institutions.
Those who voted for Brexit will have done so for a range of reasons, I do not presume to state what they were with any kind of certainty, but none of us can. It is certainly the case that much was made in the campaigning to leave the EU, that involved a different kind of relationship with the Single Market and Customs Union than the Government seems determined (if not exaclty able) to achieve.
It is, I suppose, possible that no-one was convinced or influenced by any of these arguments, but it is equally, and probably more, likely that many were persuaded by the arguments that, apparently, seem dangerously EU-integrationist to their proponents today.
It is entirely legitimate to make this argument.
If the Government of the day can command a majority in Parliament for the vision of Brexit that it has identified to date, then that is what they will hope to achieve by negotiation.
The problem with Brexit means Brexit is that it can mean whatever it wants to politicians or any of us, but really what it means is whatever can be agreed, if anything, with the EU27. I do not believe that, in the unlikely event of the UK Government agreeing amongst themselves what they want, they will actually achieve it.
From my perspective, Brexit means a complete horlicks, but, as I so often aver, I'm just a little ray of sunshine.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
Two other points:
1) Vote Leave was the government sanctioned Leave campaign so it is safe to assume that the government endorsed their vision of leaving the EU.
2) The government pamphlet makes zero mention of what would happen depending on the result. All it says is 'we will implement what you decide'. Well a third voted to Leave, a third voted to Remain and a third did not vote. Good luck reconciling that.
As the government-produced leaflet endorsed remain, I doubt they endorsed any vision of leaving the EU.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
Two other points:
1) Vote Leave was the government sanctioned Leave campaign so it is safe to assume that the government endorsed their vision of leaving the EU.
2) The government pamphlet makes zero mention of what would happen depending on the result. All it says is 'we will implement what you decide'. Well a third voted to Leave, a third voted to Remain and a third did not vote. Good luck reconciling that.
As the government-produced leaflet endorsed remain, I doubt they endorsed any vision of leaving the EU.
Yes but if we were going to leave then the official government backed Leave campaign painted the picture of that vision.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
Two other points:
1) Vote Leave was the government sanctioned Leave campaign so it is safe to assume that the government endorsed their vision of leaving the EU.
2) The government pamphlet makes zero mention of what would happen depending on the result. All it says is 'we will implement what you decide'. Well a third voted to Leave, a third voted to Remain and a third did not vote. Good luck reconciling that.
As the government-produced leaflet endorsed remain, I doubt they endorsed any vision of leaving the EU.
You must have got a different leaflet to me. The leaflet I got from the government included arguments from both leave and remain. The leave section was full of easily provable lies whilst the remain section contains vague promises of things only getting better and a certain naive optimism that fell well short of outright lies. Neither argument was endorsed as such in the leaflet.
There may have course have been other leaflets that I didn't receive, as I said, this was the only leaflet I received from the government and was largely useless as it represented lies vs wishful thinking.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
Two other points:
1) Vote Leave was the government sanctioned Leave campaign so it is safe to assume that the government endorsed their vision of leaving the EU.
2) The government pamphlet makes zero mention of what would happen depending on the result. All it says is 'we will implement what you decide'. Well a third voted to Leave, a third voted to Remain and a third did not vote. Good luck reconciling that.
As the government-produced leaflet endorsed remain, I doubt they endorsed any vision of leaving the EU.
Yes but if we were going to leave then the official government backed Leave campaign painted the picture of that vision.
Let’s be honest here - we all know that Cameron and the rest of the government had no expectations that the vote would be anything except remain.
They were ill-prepared because it never entered their minds that the vote would be leave.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
Two other points:
1) Vote Leave was the government sanctioned Leave campaign so it is safe to assume that the government endorsed their vision of leaving the EU.
2) The government pamphlet makes zero mention of what would happen depending on the result. All it says is 'we will implement what you decide'. Well a third voted to Leave, a third voted to Remain and a third did not vote. Good luck reconciling that.
As the government-produced leaflet endorsed remain, I doubt they endorsed any vision of leaving the EU.
You must have got a different leaflet to me. The leaflet I got from the government included arguments from both leave and remain. The leave section was full of easily provable lies whilst the remain section contains vague promises of things only getting better and a certain naive optimism that fell well short of outright lies. Neither argument was endorsed as such in the leaflet.
There may have course have been other leaflets that I didn't receive, as I said, this was the only leaflet I received from the government and was largely useless as it represented lies vs wishful thinking.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
Two other points:
1) Vote Leave was the government sanctioned Leave campaign so it is safe to assume that the government endorsed their vision of leaving the EU.
2) The government pamphlet makes zero mention of what would happen depending on the result. All it says is 'we will implement what you decide'. Well a third voted to Leave, a third voted to Remain and a third did not vote. Good luck reconciling that.
As the government-produced leaflet endorsed remain, I doubt they endorsed any vision of leaving the EU.
You must have got a different leaflet to me. The leaflet I got from the government included arguments from both leave and remain. The leave section was full of easily provable lies whilst the remain section contains vague promises of things only getting better and a certain naive optimism that fell well short of outright lies. Neither argument was endorsed as such in the leaflet.
There may have course have been other leaflets that I didn't receive, as I said, this was the only leaflet I received from the government and was largely useless as it represented lies vs wishful thinking.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
The government may not have been an ‘active’ participant in campaigning, but the government leaflet was unambiguous in that it transparently advocated that we should remain. The choice it gave was that if we did not vote remain, we would leave the European Union.
I am not saying that the entire populace was as clued up as me, but I clearly interpreted that as meaning we leave both the SM and the CU.
This is a specious argument. The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
The government may not have been an ‘active’ participant in campaigning, but the government leaflet was unambiguous in that it transparently advocated that we should remain. The choice it gave was that if we did not vote remain, we would leave the European Union.
I am not saying that the entire populace was as clued up as me, but I clearly interpreted that as meaning we leave both the SM and the CU.
This is a specious argument. The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda.
Is it worth pointing out, I wonder, that whatever the Government said prior to the referendum is irrelevant? I mean, it's no longer the Government, and cannot bind the current one (even with exactly the same party in power) to its political commitments.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
Good question. In my opinion in 2030 the EU will cease to exist and people then will think I know we had it tough for a few years when we left the EU but thank God we did as we are now in a far better position than those that chose to remain and struggled when it collapsed.
I can't believe we are going back around the circular "...but we all knew what Leave meant" argument. @NornIrishAddick nails it above but even more simply; if we all knew exactly what Leave was apparently, why has the cabinet only started discussing amongst itself what sort of future relationship with the EU it wants in the last few weeks? Perhaps someone should have explained it them before now in that case?
This false narrative and accompanying denial of reality in that Brexiteers offered only one version of Leave is total and utter bollocks to be crude. Leavers should at least have the decency to own their position and deal with the consequences not try to tell Remainers (and other Leavers btw!) they're too stupid to remember or understand what was being said less than 2 years ago.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
The government may not have been an ‘active’ participant in campaigning, but the government leaflet was unambiguous in that it transparently advocated that we should remain. The choice it gave was that if we did not vote remain, we would leave the European Union.
I am not saying that the entire populace was as clued up as me, but I clearly interpreted that as meaning we leave both the SM and the CU.
This is a specious argument. The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda.
Is it worth pointing out, I wonder, that whatever the Government said prior to the referendum is irrelevant? I mean, it's no longer the Government, and cannot bind the current one (even with exactly the same party in power) to its political commitments.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
Good question. In my opinion in 2030 the EU will cease to exist and people then will think I know we had it tough for a few years when we left the EU but thank God we did as we are now in a far better position than those that chose to remain and struggled when it collapsed.
It’s good to see that you are basing our future on exactly the sand foundations that Brexit was built on.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
I think it will be similar to the way Germans brought up in post war Germany look back on the events that led to the rise of the Nazi party.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
Good question. In my opinion in 2030 the EU will cease to exist and people then will think I know we had it tough for a few years when we left the EU but thank God we did as we are now in a far better position than those that chose to remain and struggled when it collapsed.
Interesting - why do you think it will cease to exist? Living in Europe I see that it seems to be getting stronger in most of its countries in terms of how people see it, and how it leads to inter-country co-operation. Under what circumstances do you feel it might collapse? Apart from in Poland and Hungary, the anti-EU or far-right parties seem to have very little following and the appetite in most European countries seems to be for centrist progressive politics.
I fear that the Britons in twenty to thirty years might feel that the UK moved away from this prevailing mood to pursue something nostalgic that was not in tune with the rest of the world (apart from Trump), with serious consequences for them and would judge us accordingly. I've got no crystal ball of course, but it's a sad thought.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
The government may not have been an ‘active’ participant in campaigning, but the government leaflet was unambiguous in that it transparently advocated that we should remain. The choice it gave was that if we did not vote remain, we would leave the European Union.
I am not saying that the entire populace was as clued up as me, but I clearly interpreted that as meaning we leave both the SM and the CU.
This is a specious argument. The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda.
Thank you for backing up what both @Dippenhall and myself alluded to. The populace WERE therefore warned about leaving the SM and the CU. Both @Fiiish and @randy andy have stated the opposite.
I can't believe we are going back around the circular "...but we all knew what Leave meant" argument. @NornIrishAddick nails it above but even more simply; if we all knew exactly what Leave was apparently, why has the cabinet only started discussing amongst itself what sort of future relationship with the EU it wants in the last few weeks? Perhaps someone should have explained it them before now in that case?
This false narrative and accompanying denial of reality in that Brexiteers offered only one version of Leave is total and utter bollocks to be crude. Leavers should at least have the decency to own their position and deal with the consequences not try to tell Remainers (and other Leavers btw!) they're too stupid to remember or understand what was being said less than 2 years ago.
Rant over. Carry on.
;-)
I’ve always owned my position and stated it very clearly on here from day one.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
I think it will be similar to the way Germans brought up in post war Germany look back on the events that led to the rise of the Nazi party.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
I think it will be similar to the way Germans brought up in post war Germany look back on the events that led to the rise of the Nazi party.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
I think it will be similar to the way Germans brought up in post war Germany look back on the events that led to the rise of the Nazi party.
Dear oh dear. That’s OTT even for you.
Actually quite normal for him. One of the reasons I hardly bother to post on this thread
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
I think it will be similar to the way Germans brought up in post war Germany look back on the events that led to the rise of the Nazi party.
Dear oh dear. That’s OTT even for you.
Actually quite normal for him. One of the reasons I hardly bother to post on this thread
If he confirms that he actually believes that, then I see no point in responding to him in future.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
I think it will be similar to the way Germans brought up in post war Germany look back on the events that led to the rise of the Nazi party.
Dear oh dear. That’s OTT even for you.
Actually quite normal for him. One of the reasons I hardly bother to post on this thread
I don't think it will be that extreme either, just more a sense of sadness and frustration. Why do you think the EU will collapse? It's good to have proper Brexiter contribution on here again. Since Cabbles' intervention to stop the needless wind up posts the moderate Leave voices have come back on here to add to the discussion and made it very interesting again.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
I think it will be similar to the way Germans brought up in post war Germany look back on the events that led to the rise of the Nazi party.
Dear oh dear. That’s OTT even for you.
Actually quite normal for him. One of the reasons I hardly bother to post on this thread
I don't think it will be that extreme either, just more a sense of sadness and frustration. Why do you think the EU will collapse? It's good to have proper Brexiter contribution on here again. Since Cabbles' intervention to stop the needless wind up posts the moderate Leave voices have come back on here to add to the discussion and made it very interesting again.
I shall respond to you soon mate and thanks for keeping it civil. Football match tonight so talk later.
What do people reckon that the Britons of 2030 or 2040 would make of the events in the last years that led to where the UK is now? Genuine question. I feel that they could be even angrier with what happened than Brexiters have been with the EU over the years and, depending on how the economy has gone, feel a great sense of resentment. Very difficult to hypothesise, I know, but be interesting to hear people's thoughts about how Brexit is looked back on in ten or twenty years.
Good question. In my opinion in 2030 the EU will cease to exist and people then will think I know we had it tough for a few years when we left the EU but thank God we did as we are now in a far better position than those that chose to remain and struggled when it collapsed.
Interesting - why do you think it will cease to exist? Living in Europe I see that it seems to be getting stronger in most of its countries in terms of how people see it, and how it leads to inter-country co-operation. Under what circumstances do you feel it might collapse? Apart from in Poland and Hungary, the anti-EU or far-right parties seem to have very little following and the appetite in most European countries seems to be for centrist progressive politics.
I fear that the Britons in twenty to thirty years might feel that the UK moved away from this prevailing mood to pursue something nostalgic that was not in tune with the rest of the world (apart from Trump), with serious consequences for them and would judge us accordingly. I've got no crystal ball of course, but it's a sad thought.
I agree with that, except to make one correction which only strengthens your overall point. Although the Polish government is far -right in many ways, strongly Catholic-conservative driven, the Poles remain one of the most strongly pro EU peoples in the Union. There are going to be rows with these countries, but more along the lines of how much integration. Slovakia's leader Fico made an interesting move to become more pro EU last year. There is a Czech far -right party with about 7-10% ratings, but here is the thing: the sensible politicians here are already saying "look at what an absolute toilet Brexit is". The departing foreign minister put it almost exactly like that. The only comfort I take from Brexit is that it actually might make the EU nations stronger in their support of the principle, and take the wind out of populist- nationalist sails.
I think it was about a year ago that @i_b_b_o_r_g forecast on here there would be a Frexit referendum by 2019. When I cordially invited him to have a wager on that, he disappeared back to the brasserie for his pastis and boules. That of course was at the time when some were getting excited about "Marine". She of course crashed and burnt, and we now have one of the most interesting young leaders of a major EU country. I don't pretend everything in the Euro garden is rosy, but my, it looks a whole lot rosier than a year ago, on a whole range of parameters.
I can't believe we are going back around the circular "...but we all knew what Leave meant" argument. @NornIrishAddick nails it above but even more simply; if we all knew exactly what Leave was apparently, why has the cabinet only started discussing amongst itself what sort of future relationship with the EU it wants in the last few weeks? Perhaps someone should have explained it them before now in that case?
This false narrative and accompanying denial of reality in that Brexiteers offered only one version of Leave is total and utter bollocks to be crude. Leavers should at least have the decency to own their position and deal with the consequences not try to tell Remainers (and other Leavers btw!) they're too stupid to remember or understand what was being said less than 2 years ago.
Rant over. Carry on.
;-)
I’ve always owned my position and stated it very clearly on here from day one.
You may have done but it is clear that those behind Brexit are now pursuing a different agenda to that set out previously.
Even on here only recently @Southbank claimed that initially he was in favour of a "soft" Brexit...but has moved to the hardest form of leaving since. We'll in that case he's clearly not going to get what he actually voted for is he? Or he is, and he's not going get what he now wants! So, utterly inconsistent with the falsehood being set out in other words.
What about the others on here pre-referendum who were promoting EFTA, Norway style, etc. membership as their reason to leave? They can't ALL be getting their version of Brexit can they? What about the dozy moron on another site I read recently who claimed she voted Leave as a "protest vote" in the expectation that Cameron would still win but go back to the EU for more concessions? She didn't even want to leave for heaven's sake yet the narrative gaining traction with Leavers now is that everyone knew exactly what would happen as a result i.e. the hardest, most disruptive Brexit possible when they entered the polling station. It's bullshit.
When even the Ministers responsible for delivering it clearly can't agree amongst themselves wtf it meant it is demonstrably untrue to pursue the line we all did. I'd rather focus any discussion on here on the way forward personally but this particular line of nonsense needs nipping in the bud before it becomes accepted as the truth.
Comments
Brexit may mean Brexit. But, as British Exit is exit from the EU, membership of the EEA means Brexit, remaining within the Customs Union means Brexit, and the UK leaving the EU in March 2019 and seeking to rejoin in April 2019, or even after 60 seconds (probably on much worse terms), also means Brexit. Anything that means that the UK is not formally an member state is Brexit, even if it includes membership of EU institutions.
Those who voted for Brexit will have done so for a range of reasons, I do not presume to state what they were with any kind of certainty, but none of us can. It is certainly the case that much was made in the campaigning to leave the EU, that involved a different kind of relationship with the Single Market and Customs Union than the Government seems determined (if not exaclty able) to achieve.
It is, I suppose, possible that no-one was convinced or influenced by any of these arguments, but it is equally, and probably more, likely that many were persuaded by the arguments that, apparently, seem dangerously EU-integrationist to their proponents today.
It is entirely legitimate to make this argument.
If the Government of the day can command a majority in Parliament for the vision of Brexit that it has identified to date, then that is what they will hope to achieve by negotiation.
The problem with Brexit means Brexit is that it can mean whatever it wants to politicians or any of us, but really what it means is whatever can be agreed, if anything, with the EU27. I do not believe that, in the unlikely event of the UK Government agreeing amongst themselves what they want, they will actually achieve it.
From my perspective, Brexit means a complete horlicks, but, as I so often aver, I'm just a little ray of sunshine.
There may have course have been other leaflets that I didn't receive, as I said, this was the only leaflet I received from the government and was largely useless as it represented lies vs wishful thinking.
They were ill-prepared because it never entered their minds that the vote would be leave.
https://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525022/20160523_Leaflet_EASY_READ_FINAL_VERSION.pdf
https://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
In my opinion in 2030 the EU will cease to exist and people then will think I know we had it tough for a few years when we left the EU but thank God we did as we are now in a far better position than those that chose to remain and struggled when it collapsed.
This false narrative and accompanying denial of reality in that Brexiteers offered only one version of Leave is total and utter bollocks to be crude. Leavers should at least have the decency to own their position and deal with the consequences not try to tell Remainers (and other Leavers btw!) they're too stupid to remember or understand what was being said less than 2 years ago.
Rant over. Carry on.
;-)
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/916875/END-OF-THE-WORLD-Nibiru-2018-planet-x-david-meade-israel-apocalypse
I fear that the Britons in twenty to thirty years might feel that the UK moved away from this prevailing mood to pursue something nostalgic that was not in tune with the rest of the world (apart from Trump), with serious consequences for them and would judge us accordingly. I've got no crystal ball of course, but it's a sad thought.
You can’t all be right.
One of the reasons I hardly bother to post on this thread
Football match tonight so talk later.
I think it was about a year ago that @i_b_b_o_r_g forecast on here there would be a Frexit referendum by 2019. When I cordially invited him to have a wager on that, he disappeared back to the brasserie for his pastis and boules. That of course was at the time when some were getting excited about "Marine". She of course crashed and burnt, and we now have one of the most interesting young leaders of a major EU country. I don't pretend everything in the Euro garden is rosy, but my, it looks a whole lot rosier than a year ago, on a whole range of parameters.
Even on here only recently @Southbank claimed that initially he was in favour of a "soft" Brexit...but has moved to the hardest form of leaving since. We'll in that case he's clearly not going to get what he actually voted for is he? Or he is, and he's not going get what he now wants! So, utterly inconsistent with the falsehood being set out in other words.
What about the others on here pre-referendum who were promoting EFTA, Norway style, etc. membership as their reason to leave? They can't ALL be getting their version of Brexit can they? What about the dozy moron on another site I read recently who claimed she voted Leave as a "protest vote" in the expectation that Cameron would still win but go back to the EU for more concessions? She didn't even want to leave for heaven's sake yet the narrative gaining traction with Leavers now is that everyone knew exactly what would happen as a result i.e. the hardest, most disruptive Brexit possible when they entered the polling station. It's bullshit.
When even the Ministers responsible for delivering it clearly can't agree amongst themselves wtf it meant it is demonstrably untrue to pursue the line we all did. I'd rather focus any discussion on here on the way forward personally but this particular line of nonsense needs nipping in the bud before it becomes accepted as the truth.