EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Puffing Devil]

Do you mean a referendum to democratically establish the will of the people to re-validate a referendum result that was the democratic will of the people?

There was a vote to leave. There was no decision, or even mandate on the "type" of leave. We seem to be heading for the hardest of Brexits - had the question and implications been made completely clear at the time you may have a case for the "will of the people". We could go for the softest of brexits and still claim to have left, is that still "the will of the people"?

 

[rdeez]

There was a vote to leave. There was no decision, or even mandate on the "type" of leave. We seem to be heading for the hardest of Brexits - had the question and implications been made completely clear at the time you may have a case for the "will of the people". We could go for the softest of brexits and still claim to have left, is that still "the will of the people"?

This.

Supporters of a hard brexit justify it as 'the will of the people'. When I voted, I only recall two options - stay, or leave. In retrospect it must surely be seen as a huge mistake to impose a binary choice on such a contentious and complicated issue. The fact of the matter is, it is utterly impossible to say how many leave voters wanted a hard brexit, a soft brexit, or any other variant of brexit on the basis of the result. We only know that a small majority of voters wanted brexit in some form. To me, that suggests a deal should be guided by balancing the result with the national interest and the need to protect the economy and maintain stability, which means a moderate or softer brexit based on compromise.

Instead, a small but significant faction of tories- I don't need to name the ringleaders, I'm sure - are holding the PM to ransom and scuppering any attempts at any kind of compromise or deal that the EU could accept, forcing us ever closer to the brink of no deal (or an awful deal), a situation in which we all (with few exceptions) will suffer in some form or another. History will not be kind of them once the real consequences of such a scenario are realised.

 

[Jonny]

Surely, getting out of the political circlejerk that is the EU is worth it though?

 

[EM2]

Surely, getting out of the political circlejerk that is the EU is worth it though?

If it was for something better, then maybe. But there's no evidence that we have.

 

[fowler9]

Surely, getting out of the political circlejerk that is the EU is worth it though?

Not if the usual suspects will be guiding our country's future.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Surely, getting out of the political circlejerk that is the EU is worth it though?

Why? How exactly will the country as a whole be in a better position if we leave?

 

[VauxhallandI]

In hindsight we should have done this vote Inglorious ******* style.

Three types of branding available - leave, remain, no vote

As it looks like there might come a time that no one admits to being part of the will of the people and I want them to be in full view

 

[birchesgreen]

Supporters of a hard brexit justify it as 'the will of the people'. When I voted, I only recall two options - stay, or leave. In retrospect it must surely be seen as a huge mistake to impose a binary choice on such a contentious and complicated issue. The fact of the matter is, it is utterly impossible to say how many leave voters wanted a hard brexit, a soft brexit, or any other variant of brexit on the basis of the result. We only know that a small majority of voters wanted brexit in some form. To me, that suggests a deal should be guided by balancing the result with the national interest and the need to protect the economy and maintain stability, which means a moderate or softer brexit based on compromise.

Equally its hard to say what remain voters wanted. Personally i wanted EFTA and single market membership though that wasn't on the paper so opted for the status quo. As we have seen the question of leaving the EU is hugely complicated. A better referendum would have been to ask if we should start exploring leaving options or not, and if so then debate them without the sword of Damocles hanging over us. Then had a second ref on what the future should be. THEN enact A50 with an actual plan and objective...

Anyway it'll be over soon, May and Brexit will be binned by Christmas. The harm to British reputation for stable government will last a generation though.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Anyway it'll be over soon, May and Brexit will be binned by Christmas. The harm to British reputation for stable government will last a generation though.

I can see May going, unfortunately, I believe Brexit will happen. You're right about Britain's reputation - all because a weak PM wanted to satisfy what was a small pressure group in a time of dissatisfaction which snowballed to included many protest votes buoyed up by false news, false promises and false hope.

 

[Howardh]

This.

Supporters of a hard brexit justify it as 'the will of the people'. When I voted, I only recall two options - stay, or leave. In retrospect it must surely be seen as a huge mistake to impose a binary choice on such a contentious and complicated issue. The fact of the matter is, it is utterly impossible to say how many leave voters wanted a hard brexit, a soft brexit, or any other variant of brexit on the basis of the result. We only know that a small majority of voters wanted brexit in some form.

There is another angle to that - suppose the option was to remain OR to leave with a definate model to replace it - ie. the talked-about Norway model, or applying for EFTA (and if the application fails we remain) and being part of the EEA; that option may have got far more support from remainers (ie a higher % to leave) and we wouldn't be such a split nation.
Therefore maybe 60 - 70% of the country would be behind a "soft brexit" and the extremists wanting a hard WTO Brexit get sidelined.

 

[richa2002]

This.

Supporters of a hard brexit justify it as 'the will of the people'. When I voted, I only recall two options - stay, or leave. In retrospect it must surely be seen as a huge mistake to impose a binary choice on such a contentious and complicated issue. The fact of the matter is, it is utterly impossible to say how many leave voters wanted a hard brexit, a soft brexit, or any other variant of brexit on the basis of the result. We only know that a small majority of voters wanted brexit in some form. To me, that suggests a deal should be guided by balancing the result with the national interest and the need to protect the economy and maintain stability, which means a moderate or softer brexit based on compromise.

Instead, a small but significant faction of tories- I don't need to name the ringleaders, I'm sure - are holding the PM to ransom and scuppering any attempts at any kind of compromise or deal that the EU could accept, forcing us ever closer to the brink of no deal (or an awful deal), a situation in which we all (with few exceptions) will suffer in some form or another. History will not be kind of them once the real consequences of such a scenario are realised.

Remainers want to believe this as it gives them some kind of legitimacy to re-run things. Total nonsense though. Leave voters were repeatedly told that leave would mean leave in the hardest possible sense to try and scare them into not voting that way. Then suddenly when it doesn't go the way remainers expect, there is an invented confusion of what leave really meant. I really do question this idea that some people voted leave thinking we'd only leave a bit, that was not the message of the two campaigns whatsoever and seems like quite a risky choice . I strongly suspect those who only wanted to leave a bit actually voted remain as a 'safe' choice. See 'trash80' above as an example.

 

[Bromley boy]

Remainers want to believe this as it gives them some kind of legitimacy to re-run things. Total nonsense though. Leave voters were repeatedly told that leave would mean leave in the hardest possible sense to try and scare them into not voting that way. Then suddenly when it doesn't go the way remainers expect, there is an invented confusion of what leave really meant. I really do question this idea that some people voted leave thinking we'd only leave a bit, that was not the message of the two campaigns whatsoever and seems like quite a risky choice . I strongly suspect those who only wanted to leave a bit actually voted remain as a 'safe' choice. See 'trash80' above as an example.

Quite right.

The remain camp assured us during the campaign that leaving would cause the world to end, punishment budget etc.

It’s supremely arrogant for remainers to pretend leavers didn’t know what they were voting for just because things didn’t go their way.

 

[JonasB]

Well you've ignored most of my post so let me remind you:

from post #10257 - "Diverting long-haul flights is of far less time or commercial consequence than having an almost total barrier from 42N 10W to 69N 21E"
Flights to and from the UK would be unable to fly over any country facing the UK between Sweden/Finland and Spain/Portugal.

You can probably replace Sweden/Finland with Norway/Iceland as they are both members of the European Common Aviation Area.

I'm not sure how likely this is to happen, but KLM, Lufthansa and Air France will be able to fly around UK airspace on their way to North America. And Iberia, SAS, TAP and others won't be affected at all. For BA however, it will be a disaster. Hardly a case where the EU needs the UK more than vice versa. The big problem however in this scenario will be flights between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Remainers want to believe this as it gives them some kind of legitimacy to re-run things. Total nonsense though. Leave voters were repeatedly told that leave would mean leave in the hardest possible sense to try and scare them into not voting that way. Then suddenly when it doesn't go the way remainers expect, there is an invented confusion of what leave really meant. I really do question this idea that some people voted leave thinking we'd only leave a bit, that was not the message of the two campaigns whatsoever and seems like quite a risky choice . I strongly suspect those who only wanted to leave a bit actually voted remain as a 'safe' choice. See 'trash80' above as an example.

Quite right.

The remain camp assured us during the campaign that leaving would cause the world to end, punishment budget etc.

It’s supremely arrogant for remainers to pretend leavers didn’t know what they were voting for just because things didn’t go their way.

And leavers assured us during the campaign that leaving would mean we could stay in the single market, have hundreds of millions extra for the NHS, etc etc. Hell, look at the quotes from the leave campaign. Sure, they changed their message depending on who they were speaking to, but there are many many quotes about "no one is talking about leaving the single market" or suggesting we could get a Norway like deal. I've lost count of how many times I've posted this fact here now, but to say like you both have that the leave campaign didn't try to say we could have a "soft brexit" (where we have single market access etc) is just a plain lie.

As for the remain campaign, the warnings about a hard brexit were not to "scare" people but an attempt to tell people you can't have your cake and eat it and that any leave supporter saying we could still get all the benefits of the EU without being in it was talking out of their backside.

And as for not knowing what they were voting for. You may have. But the average joe has no idea what the single market or customs union actually is, and hadn't even heard of Euratom or EASA etc. So how on earth could they have known what they were voting for?

 

[Puffing Devil]

You can probably replace Sweden/Finland with Norway/Iceland as they are both members of the European Common Aviation Area.

I'm not sure how likely this is to happen, but KLM, Lufthansa and Air France will be able to fly around UK airspace on their way to North America. And Iberia, SAS, TAP and others won't be affected at all. For BA however, it will be a disaster. Hardly a case where the EU needs the UK more than vice versa. The big problem however in this scenario will be flights between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

I posted about this earlier:

This is very unlike to occur - there's a Wikipedia article that explains overfly rights and the UK is a signatory to the Chicago Convention.

What is an issue, as I posted earlier, is the open skies agreement between the EU and USA where freedom to operate services without additional negotiation is accepted (let's call it a flying free trade agreement) is at risk. When the UK drops out of the EU, UK rights to fly to the USA will also expire and need to be renegotiated. In March this was not looking so good...... https://www.economist.com/gulliver/...e-their-rights-to-fly-to-america-after-brexit

Don't confuse overflying with landing rights. Very different treaties and deals.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It’s supremely arrogant for remainers to pretend leavers didn’t know what they were voting for just because things didn’t go their way.

Bollox.


(This is an image of the big red bus with the £350millon a week NHS funding pledge on it)

 

[EM2]

It’s supremely arrogant for remainers to pretend leavers didn’t know what they were voting for just because things didn’t go their way.

There are headlines about stockpiling of food and medicines, of the army being put on standby to distribute it, the M26 being closed to be used as a lorry park.
Is that what you voted for?

 

[EM2]

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/13-m...rts-reveal-11454991?__twitter_impression=true

According to internal Brexit impact reports from two Conservative-run local councils, the conversion of four lanes of the M20 motorway into a 13-mile (20km) long lorry park could be in place for a number of years after the UK's departure from the EU.

The first preparations for the scheme, known as Operation Brock, have just begun, with hard shoulders about to be strengthened to sustain the weight of hundreds of parked articulated lorries.

Such a scenario is anticipated should either the Channel Tunnel or cross-Channel ferry routes see new customs or regulatory checks after Brexit.

In the internal Brexit impact report from Dover District Council, obtained by Sky News, some exasperation is expressed at the slow pace of central government preparedness.

 

[mmh]

Fake news. This was first proposed in 2015 as an improvement to Operation Stack (when the M20 is used as a lorry car park and has been for years) with a contraflow system.

Here's an article about it from only two months ago without a single mention of Brexit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-44169130

 

[nlogax]

No-one really voted to see these sorts of things happen. If Kent's motorways are turned into permanent contra flows and parking lots and we're left consuming stockpiled essentials, that'd ultimately be a failure of government in terms of its negotiating stance and refusal to accept certain realities. Not to mention the weird amount of weight the PM places on the opinions of hardened Brexiteers in her party.

Fake news. This was first proposed in 2015 as an improvement to Operation Stack (when the M20 is used as a lorry car park and has been for years) with a contraflow system.

Muttering 'fake news' at stuff you don't agree with is a tad lazy. You know why Operation Stack was renamed to Operation Brock, right?

 

[AM9]

Fake news. This was first proposed in 2015 as an improvement to Operation Stack (when the M20 is used as a lorry car park and has been for years) with a contraflow system.

Here's an article about it from only two months ago without a single mention of Brexit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-44169130

Well you've rather shot your argument in the foot. The link that you posted is nothing to do with leaving the EU, nor of course have any of the links under the 'More on this story' at the bottom of the linked page. The Operation Stack (now Operation Brock) story is all about measures to deal with (relatively short-term) blockages of the flow through Dover/Calais from events such as strikes, the worst of the 'jungle' immigration crisis and of course bad weather in the Channel. You seem to be in denial of the possibility of a permanent throttling of throughput of the crossing because of totally inadequate import and export facilities in a no single market environment. Half of Kent would need to be a lorry park to deal with that for at least 6 months.
Still don't feel embarassed by yet another leaver's misinformed argument.

 

[EM2]

Fake news.

You haven't read the article, have you?

 

[Howardh]

You haven't read the article, have you?

Interesting that the phrase

Roads minister Jesse Norman said the "interim plan" will start early in 2019 while a permanent solution is found

has been seemingly overlooked. Now, what exactly is the plan for Kent? More roads? More lorry parks away from the docks to check the goods? Enlargement of the docks? How many people in Tory-voting Kent will approve of more farmland being bulldozed (hey, they could build more homes/hospitals instead?)? How long will the plans take to get through - if at all?

 

[AM9]

Interesting that the phrase has been seemingly overlooked. Now, what exactly is the plan for Kent? More roads? More lorry parks away from the docks to check the goods? Enlargement of the docks? How many people in Tory-voting Kent will approve of more farmland being bulldozed (hey, they could build more homes/hospitals instead?)? How long will the plans take to get through - if at all?

If it gets that far, we might yet see 'Men of Kent' mimicking French farmers. Given that the county voted 59% in favour of leaving the EU, that would be such an irony.

 

[Howardh]

If it gets that far, we might yet see 'Men of Kent' mimiking French farmers. Given that the county voted 59% in favour of leaving the EU, that would be such an irony.

The "concerns" down there will be noted by the Tory MP's sitting there. need to look up what their majorities are - and also what might happen if the new boundaries are brought in. If they are hard-Brexit supporting MP's they may be getting twitchy. Given the prospect of congested roads for years or Brexit, I think many of those 59% wouldn't vote for Brexit again.

 

[Bromley boy]

Bollox.


(This is an image of the big red bus with the £350millon a week NHS funding pledge on it)

Ah yes that old chestnut again.

Project fear, punishment budget not to mention the media “establishment” was firmly in remain’s favour - bollox right back!

Funny how the only people we ever hear saying leavers didn’t know what they were voting for is remainers.

 

[Bromley boy]

There are headlines about stockpiling of food and medicines, of the army being put on standby to distribute it, the M26 being closed to be used as a lorry park.
Is that what you voted for?

I voted to leave, so that is what we must do.

The government should have adopted a better, more robust, negotiating style right from the beginning - for whatever reason they seem to have chosen not to. There’s nothing I can do about that.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Ah yes that old chestnut again.

Project fear, punishment budget not to mention the media “establishment” was firmly in remain’s favour - bollox right back!

Funny how the only people we ever hear saying leavers didn’t know what they were voting for is remainers.

How is any of that relevant to the point of leavers knowing what they voting for when one of the things they voted for has turned out to be a lie?

I voted to leave, so that is what we must do.

The government should have adopted a better, more robust, negotiating style right from the beginning - for whatever reason they seem to have chosen not to. There’s nothing I can do about that.

Why must we leave if it ends up bad for a the country?
In any other situation, if you realise that a path you are going down is a bad one, you can change your mind.
And yes, you voted to leave the EU. You did not necessarily vote to leave the single market, the customs union, Euratom, EASA or whatever (or maybe you did, that is the point, we don't know).

 

[mmh]

No-one really voted to see these sorts of things happen. If Kent's motorways are turned into permanent contra flows and parking lots and we're left consuming stockpiled essentials, that'd ultimately be a failure of government in terms of its negotiating stance and refusal to accept certain realities. Not to mention the weird amount of weight the PM places on the opinions of hardened Brexiteers in her party.



Muttering 'fake news' at stuff you don't agree with is a tad lazy. You know why Operation Stack was renamed to Operation Brock, right?

No lazier than posting links to Brexit Apocalypse articles without comment or question. I read the article and saw that it's apparently an acronym for "Brexit Operations Across Kent", but didn't understand why Kent County Council, or any other local council, would be responsible for a new motorway contraflow system, and some low-grade Google searches found they're not, that the proposal dates back to 2015 i.e. pre-Brexit, the "Project Brock" name appears to be a DfT term (the main references I could find to it are a National Audit Office report into the DfT's Brexit preparations), and as part of it they've given funding and instruction to Highways England to go ahead with a revised version of the 2015 scheme which was rejected at the time.

Well you've rather shot your argument in the foot. The link that you posted is nothing to do with leaving the EU, nor of course have any of the links under the 'More on this story' at the bottom of the linked page. The Operation Stack (now Operation Brock) story is all about measures to deal with (relatively short-term) blockages of the flow through Dover/Calais from events such as strikes, the worst of the 'jungle' immigration crisis and of course bad weather in the Channel.

It's not shot in the foot at all. It was my whole point that this proposal pre-dates Brexit, hence there being articles about it which have nothing to do with leaving the EU. It seems it's only in the past fortnight that someone's picked up on it having been approved and included with whatever else "Project Brock" does, hence the new articles.

You seem to be in denial of the possibility of a permanent throttling of throughput of the crossing because of totally inadequate import and export facilities in a no single market environment. Half of Kent would need to be a lorry park to deal with that for at least 6 months. Still don't feel embarassed by yet another leaver's misinformed argument.

Ah, the all Brexit voters are stupid, uneducated, racist bigots argument. Yawn.

You haven't read the article, have you?

Yes, thank you.

 

[EM2]

Yes, thank you.

So despite numerous quotes relating to Brexit in the article, taken from the documents concerned, you insist that it has nothing to do with Brexit?