Brexit

[Witton Park]

Left and Right is an interesting debate.

Take benefits. I would actually err towards making benefits linked to contributions so that except in extreme circumstances such as incapacity, an 18 year old couldn't leave school/college and be in receipt of benefits.
I can understand that is right wing.

Nationalisation would be left wing, such as taking the Royal Mail back in to the public sector.

I would go for that as well.

Working Time directive policy. I would take some elements and amend them, such as making breaks compulsoty and paid.
I would set it at (per shift) 10 minutes + 3 minutes per hour.

I would also make it compulsory to be Saturday and Sunday working at MW + 20%.

That would be left wing.

So am I right or left?

[Oracle]

They clearly thought (and presumably were advised) that this was the best approach. I think generally politicians want to run positive campaigns, but are advised about how successful negative campaigns usually are.

I think they underestimated the degree of animosity towards the EU. They were probably also surprised that so many of their colleagues actively promoted the leave cause.

Given this, I don't think they could have swung it with a positive campaign.

Remain campaign and rhetoric since was so successful, I am still blissfully unaware of any cogent argument supporting membership of the EU. There are so many red herrings.

Take: people say EU freedom of movement is needed to help with staffing the health service. Yet the argument on EU helping is negative on staffing. The silly EU working time directive that forces "on call" hours to be part of a quota has put massive extra pressure on staffing and funding. Even EU are now reconsidering because of massive opposition. These are the silly "EU laws" that remainers never seem to know, and never get enough air time. And we can still allow nurses to come!

Indeed the argument on staffing defies the simple control test. Australia , New Zealand and Canada get on just fine and they are not in the EU! So the argument is a #fail, simply on control comparison.

Every where you look, EU hinders not helps. On a personal level, about to retire: it is patently ridiculous that EU forces men and womens rates for insurance and life insurance to be the same, despite women living longer. So men subsidise women. WHy should i subsidise women because of a law I cannot influence, created by unelected appartchiks! At very least our parliament should decide it. Not necessary for EU wide legislation.

And so on. So if somebody could point out a benefit I would be interested to hear it.

Cutting to the chase..
Could it be that Cameron and Osbourne when faced with needing objective reasons could not actually find any that withstood intellectual scrutiny? I am the muppet thar red several books on the Brexit decision before I cast my vote. The more I read, the less I liked. Benefits of EU reminds me of when Hackers daughter in yes minister asked him what he had achieved. And he said well theres "um....umm...." he could not actually find any!

[DrPatrickBarry]

Disregarding the issues, it wasnt just him. Cameron and Osbourne are to blame for running an entirely negative campaign.

It worked with the Scottish vote. The SNP produced their very detailed document outlining how an independent Scotland would work. That provided loads of ammo for the unionists. The brexiteers produced nothing to say how life out side the EU would work so there was nothing for the remainers to point out that actually what we have at the moment is better than that.


I suppose at the time that was clever; it got the vote over the line. But as we all now know, that has caused it's own problems about "what exactly is Brexit?".

[Witton Park]

The brexiteers produced nothing to say how life out side the EU would work

Are you for real?

End to the payment of £350m to the EU (I know the figure is controversial, but the reality is probably higher when you take in to account off balance sheet transfers)

Control of Borders. That includes for immigration policy, extradition policy, security.

Able to set our own trade policy. That's not just trade in goods, but service agreements, new technology, medical development.

The Supreme Court would be the ultimate arbiter and the UK Parliament would be the ultimate law-maker.

[Muddy Retriever]

I suppose at the time that was clever; it got the vote over the line. But as we all now know, that has caused it's own problems about "what exactly is Brexit?".

You remainers really like to change history don't you. What you're saying is a complete myth.

Even if the Leave campaign hadn't said that leaving meant coming out of the single market and customs union (which they did and so did the remain side) it was implicit in taking back control of laws, borders and money. How could you do any of things the Leave side were arguing for without leaving all the EU's institutions. We are where we are because the political class have decided to renege on the result, it is as simple as that.

To realise how daft this is just imagine if the Scots had voted for independence. Then lets say in the negotiations that followed it was decided that the Scots should still have many of their laws made by the UK. Imagine saying "well when you voted to be independent, we didn't realise you actually meant that you wanted to be independent"

[Muddy Retriever]

It worked with the Scottish vote. The SNP produced their very detailed document outlining how an independent Scotland would work. That provided loads of ammo for the unionists.".

They failed because their prospectus was full of holes. For example what currency were they going to use? How were they going to have the increased public spending they promised when they would no longer be net recipients of funds from the UK? Yes, the pro-independence side was subjected to the same "Project Fear" as the Leave side and there is no reason why Scotland couldn't become an independent country. But the "Yes" campaign failed to answer some pretty basic questions.

[Oracle]

It worked with the Scottish vote. The SNP produced their very detailed document outlining how an independent Scotland would work. That provided loads of ammo for the unionists. The brexiteers produced nothing to say how life out side the EU would work so there was nothing for the remainers to point out that actually what we have at the moment is better than that.


I suppose at the time that was clever; it got the vote over the line. But as we all now know, that has caused it's own problems about "what exactly is Brexit?".

I actually have sympathy with that. The brexit case was piecemeal too.
It needed a pithy three or four page vision (business plan AKA sales letter) called "UK prospering outside the EU", painting a picture of the singapore of the north, noting the successful aspects of other countries, also painting the strong future relationship with EU and how to manage some of the problems of transition.

What witton says is also correct "our own trade deals" but that is a feature , not a benefit. It needs emphasing why tailoring deals to our own situation rather than an ill fitting one size fits all would help. The arguments are there and real. But they were not presented well.

At least brexit did present some positive arguments albeit bad on presentation, the remain campaign was entirely negative selling. It failed to highlight benefits at all.

In the end none of it mattered much. EU total refusal to negotiate and to prefer lose lose to win win, was never going to end well for EU or in agreement with us. EU heavy handed ness will be its downfall. Today there are demonstrations in Poland to vote to leave the EU.

[Witton Park]

What witton says is also correct "our own trade deals" but that is a feature , not a benefit.

it is an opportunity, where our politicians might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The option is there to have a trade policy, but would our politicians know what to do with it?

The referendum was giving direction.

The Remain side had Corbyn, Cameron, Farron and Sturgeon all putting forward a vision of a reformed EU. They all wanted something different from Cameron's looser arrangement to Corbyn's socialist brotherhood.

So what type of Remain? We only knew what we had in 2016. We could not know how many members, what powers would be with the EU.... by 2025

Likewise with leave. John Mann would not want the same policy after leaving as Rees-Mogg.

But the whole point of leave was to give both John Mann and Rees-Mogg the option to stand behind policies that they cannot when in the EU.

[Derby Tup]

Race report done ✅

[Derby Tup]

Parkrun tomorrow. Four on the trot all being well and an obvious target to achieve this week 😏