Brexit

[Wheeze]

Sorry Pat, I did not make my point clear enough. The question on the vote paper was clean and pure....leave or remain. No qualifiers etc. So the vote answer was pure too. Leave. That is all 'Brexit' can actually mean because non of the voters were asked to define what 'Brexit' was other than to leave.

Of course, I agree that one persons Brexit may be different to anothers but that was not in question.

[Muddy Retriever]

The exact opposite of that is the problem. There is noting remotly close to a consensus among the 52% as to what brexit actualy is. You have everything from the no-deal supporters though to brexit voters who would be happy with keeping a close relationnship with the EU.

What I'm going to say is probably similar to WP. To deliver on what Leave supporters wanted we need to leave the EU's institutions. To become a sovereign nation like the vast majority of countries around the world, we need to leave both the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Let's take an example, there are some people who voted Brexit whose main concern was to end free movement. Others didn't want laws made by the EU to be imposed on Britain. So you could argue that these two motives were different. But to achieve either of them we need to do the same thing i.e. Leave the Single Market.

Many MP's now want the so called Norway plus model, which means retaining Single Market and Customs Union membership. I doubt there is more than a tiny number of people who voted to Leave who had this in mind when they did so. What is the point? It literally is Brexit in name only and a betrayal of the vote.

What I find particularly galling is those Tory MP's who want Norway plus or a second referendum as the 2017 Conservative manifesto explicitly promised to leave the Single Market and Customs Union. Why did they stand as a Tory MP if they were so implacably opposed to that?

[DrPatrickBarry]

Loads of people talk about "what people want". Nobody talks about what they are prepared to pay for it.
Do you think that the Nissan workers are prepared to jeopardise their jobs to leave the Single market and end free movement. I could ask loads of other questions but you get the gist.

[Witton Park]

Loads of people talk about "what people want". Nobody talks about what they are prepared to pay for it.
Do you think that the Nissan workers are prepared to jeopardise their jobs to leave the Single market and end free movement. I could ask loads of other questions but you get the gist.

Again Patrick you are wrong.

On the run up to the Referendum the Treasury said that we would be 8% poorer if we Leave than if we Remain.

We were warned that leaving the Single Market would be harmful to the economy.

We were warned that leaving the EU Free Trade area in order to pursue trade agreements elsewhere was folly.

But we still voted to leave on balance.

Furthermore, the areas with the car plants, most of the areas where more jobs rely on the manufacture of goods still, were the ones most likely to vote leave.

We either felt that the warnings were incorrect (I did) and/or felt that it was better to be a poorer and free than a wealthier slave.

[Wheeze]

I think part of the problem here Pat is that a voter who decided to vote remain would spend little time considering the 'what ifs' because, essentially there was going to be no change. But someone who decided to leave actually would spend time considering the wheres and why fors because it meant a change was going to come. Of course the Leave campaign pulled some pretty shoddy stunts to try to gloss over the financial risks such as the £350 million for the Nash....but I think most sentient beings saw that for what it was. Cheap grandstanding!
But WP sums it up well; 'better to be poorer and free etc'.

[TheGrump]

Sorry Pat, I did not make my point clear enough. The question on the vote paper was clean and pure....leave or remain. No qualifiers etc. So the vote answer was pure too. Leave. That is all 'Brexit' can actually mean because non of the voters were asked to define what 'Brexit' was other than to leave.

Of course, I agree that one persons Brexit may be different to another's but that was not in question.

Exactly - one could argue that given the naivety of the referendum question, the electorate voted to leave at any cost and regardless of the outcome of any deal. Incompetence and hypocrisy by the political classes from beginning to end.
But as you say, people voted for different assumptions as to what their vote meant, hence the impasse.

[TheHeathens]

Sorry Pat, I did not make my point clear enough. The question on the vote paper was clean and pure....leave or remain. No qualifiers etc. So the vote answer was pure too. Leave. That is all 'Brexit' can actually mean because non of the voters were asked to define what 'Brexit' was other than to leave.

Of course, I agree that one persons Brexit may be different to anothers but that was not in question.

The referendum question was fundamentally flawed. To have democratic legitimacy, the question must allow voters to make an informed decision and as nobody knew what 'Leave' looked like, it's clear that this isn't the case.

Events since the referendum have shown that it's quite clearly not a binary question (no reasonable person can argue against that, given the current impasse) so there's a need to go back to the people to agree on what 'Leave' looks like and to then vote whether they want to leave under those conditions or remain in the EU.

[bigfella]

The referendum question was fundamentally flawed. To have democratic legitimacy, the question must allow voters to make an informed decision and as nobody knew what 'Leave' looked like, it's clear that this isn't the case.

Events since the referendum have shown that it's quite clearly not a binary question (no reasonable person can argue against that, given the current impasse) so there's a need to go back to the people to agree on what 'Leave' looks like and to then vote whether they want to leave under those conditions or remain in the EU.

We should therefore split the remain vote:
a) remain just as it is today
b) remain with national governments having about as much control as the devolved welsh assembly has today.
c) remain with compulsory conscription to the proposed EU army.
d) ,,,

[Mossdog]

We should therefore split the remain vote:
a) remain just as it is today
b) remain with national governments having about as much control as the devolved welsh assembly has today.
c) remain with compulsory conscription to the proposed EU army.
d) ,,,

Ummm.....that sounds a lot like 'project fear'! Seems it cuts both ways then.

[bigfella]

Absolutely, the EU today isn't the common market institution we joined years ago, and tomorrow it will be different again so, yes, it's a decision on principles not on short term practicalities.