Opinions on Brexit

[Dent]

Indeed. I made up my mind in 1992 that if I was ever given the opportunity (which I never believed I would) I would vote to leave. Nothing anybody said between then and 2016 persuaded me otherwise (nor was it likely to). Similarly, nothing that has happened since then has surprised me, nor has it made me reconsider my position (nor is it likely to).

So basically you made the decision based on nothing but blind prejudice, and you were never willing to even consider any of the relevant evidence. That doesn't exactly sound like a sensible approach to a decision with far-reaching consequences for the whole structure of our society.

 

[GS250]

Brexit has been handled appallingly by the UK, from the delay and dithering before invoking A50, through some of the disgraceful efforts to reverse the referendum result or implement Brexit in name only, until now where the changes necessary to thrive outside the EU are still not being implemented. But that's because many politicians and their senior Civil Servants see Brexit as a damage limitation exercise instead of an opportunity to steer the UK away from the idea that nothing outside Europe matters too much. But that was to be expected too.

There was clearly no contingency plan being drawn up before the vote was cast. The naive assumption that the silent majority would come out in their droves to keep us in the EU (by a big margin) was wildly incorrect. The shock of the result, in spite of most polls having the two sides neck and neck took months to sink in across the wider establishment. A50 should have been in within weeks not nearly a year after the result.

Agreed with you, I am not particularly happy with the way Brexit has been handed and implemented. There still appears to be an almost paralysis like attitude across the UK establishment when it comes to taking advantage of our new position.

 

[Doppelganger]

A50 should have been in within weeks not nearly a year after the result

Really? How would that have that made anything better?

The UK was in no position to untangle itself from the EU infrastructures in such a small period of time and its trading relationship was no where near prepared, and indeed still has not been finalised. If we also throw in Northern Ireland into the equation then triggering A50 early would have been a stupid move. I would further argue that triggering it when it was also wasn't a smart move, as at the time the British Government had zero plan about how to move things forward and to be honest, it doesn't look like they have any strategy now.

 

[Dent]

There still appears to be an almost paralysis like attitude across the UK establishment when it comes to taking advantage of our new position.

What material advantage is actually there to be taken?

 

[jfollows]

I voted 'I voted Remain and stand by that decision'; I do feel strongly on the issue but don't want to argue with anyone and I don't get angry over it.

I respect the views of people who genuinely think Brexit is a positive thing because they have given thought to it and have considered the economic effects (positive and negative), but I do get the impression some people voted for Brexit for zenophobic and/or racist reasons and I resent that.

I agree with you, I also voted Remain and nothing I've seen since 2016 makes me change my mind in any way.
What has saddened me are reports of people, sometimes family members, falling out over the issue.
It's OK to have strong views, but there are more important things such as respect and friendship.
My brother-in-law, who emigrated to Rhodes in 2013 along with my sister and family, is someone I get along with very well, but his view on Brexit is the opposite to mine, and we simply agree to disagree over it. It may be harder for my sister, of course, because she shares my views and not his, but I don't think it is really.
I have another older friend who voted to leave and now regrets it. I don't spend my time saying "I told you so", that'd be silly.
As you say, there are plenty of people who have genuine views which are well thought out and different to mine (and yours). That's part of what makes life interesting, I'd far rather that we weren't all cloned!

 

[Enthusiast]

What made you decide way back in 1992? Was it related to the Maastricht treaty?

Yes

What would it take for you to reconsider? The UK economy is doing a lot worse than other major economies, energy prices are way higher, inflation is higher, exporting has been seriously damaged and inward investment is down and unlikely to recover.

Nothing. The EU average inflation rate is marginally higher. than the UK's. The UK's is lower than Sweden and Austria and virtually all the Eastern EU members. Energy prices in the UK (one of the biggest drivers of its high inflation rate) are a result of successive governments abrogating their responsibility to ensure a suitable energy policy is in place which would safeguard supply at a reasonable price. Nothing to do with being in or out of the EU. Exports will be down whilst Brexit is treated as a damage limitation exercise and inward investment has been more crippled by the government's lack of ambition or any tangible policies to encourage growth. Again, nothing to do with Brexit; more to do with UK government ineptitude. But I didn't vote to leave because of any effects I thought it might have on the economy. I voted to leave for ideological reasons. I don't like the idea of a supranational organisation holding sway over the UK's affairs using the threat to bugger up our trade if we fail to comply with their philosophies.

So basically you made the decision based on nothing but blind prejudice, and you were never willing to even consider any of the relevant evidence. That doesn't exactly sound like a sensible approach to a decision with far-reaching consequences for the whole structure of our society.

There was nothing prejudicial in my decision. I'd considered the evidence available at the time (in 1992) and by 2016 nothing changed my mind (because the general direction of that evidence had not changed and was not likely to). I made it because I did not like the way the EEC (as it then was) was developing and considered (correctly as it turned out) that it would take on a very different form a couple of decades hence. If there had been evidence to suggest otherwise I may have reconsidered, but there was none. Anybody believing the EU will be the same animal in 20-30 years time as it is today, needs only to look back that same period and make the same comparison. I suggest it is somewhat over-egging the pudding to suggest that leaving the EU has "far-reaching consequences for the structure of our society." It simply means doing things differently. Incredible as it may seem, over 90% of the world's population lives outside the EU. Whilst the structure of some of their societies leaves a little to be desired, I don't think that absence of EU membership is the root cause of their problems.

I would further argue that triggering it when it was also wasn't a smart move, as at the time the British Government had zero plan about how to move things forward and to be honest, it doesn't look like they have any strategy now.

So basically then, because it was a bit tricky, we shouldn't have done it. Which somewhat reinforces my point - that the EU retains control of its members by making it difficult for them should they decide to leave. It's scarcely the fault of those who voted to leave that the UK government has made a Pig's Ear of it. They asked the question and undertook to implement what was decided. Just because they got the "wrong" answer was no reason to turn ineptitude into an art form.

It's all a great shame because the original idea of the EEC as a trading bloc was a good one. I voted to remain in the 1975 referendum. It's just that duplicitous (mainly failed) politicians grabbed hold of the "Project" and turned it into something it was never (publicly) made out to be.

 

[GS250]

Really? How would that have that made anything better?

The UK was in no position to untangle itself from the EU infrastructures in such a small period of time and its trading relationship was no where near prepared, and indeed still has not been finalised. If we also throw in Northern Ireland into the equation then triggering A50 early would have been a stupid move. I would further argue that triggering it when it was also wasn't a smart move, as at the time the British Government had zero plan about how to move things forward and to be honest, it doesn't look like they have any strategy now.

I agree with that assessment. I've already answered that to be fair. At no point was any planning put into our potential withdrawal. As soon as the 'referendum on the EU' was put into the Tory manifesto then planning should have started for a potential 'leave' vote. This effectively would have given the Government around 18 months to start the planning process prior to the vote. This is purely the Government's fault and absolutely no fault of those who voted to leave.

What material advantage is actually there to be taken?

Trade deals that suit the UK economy not the EU. The total inability of our civil service and senior negotiators to procure decent trade deals with the rest of the World does not look good on them. I can excuse the USA as Biden is so far in bed with the globalists and status quo he was never going to look favourably on the UK. You have to ask though, what exactly are they doing there if they can't produce good trade deals?

Actually controlling our borders. The opportunity is there. However it seems the entire political class are at a loss of how to move forward. Or, as I suspect, is this a deliberate distraction to hide their own lack of ability? Or is it being orchestrated by those above the UK government?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The fact is any advanced economy needs immigration for it to grow, especially due to aging populations.

A very questionable assumption. Apart from anything else, if you rely on population growth through immigration to provide labour to look after older people, then what are you going to do when the new immigrants become old and retire? If your answer is, even more immigration to look after them, then you've just basically created the immigration equivalent of a giant Ponzi scheme.

The UK government always had the ability to make immigration from outside the EU zero

Yes, theoretically they could, but only by preventing anyone from moving here - even those who have extremely strong moral claims for residency rights which it would be incredibly cruel to deny them (for example, husbands, wives and children of UK residents, genuine asylum seekers etc.) I do hope you're not seriously suggesting that the Government should do that, and I especially hope that you're not suggesting that the Government should have done that in order to protect the Freedom-of-Movement rights of - say - Romanians and Hungarians with no connection to the UK to move here basically on a whim?

and the latest data, not only supports they have no intention of doing so, but in fact shows net immigration is the highest on record and so greater numbers are coming in. Is this what Brexiteers wanted?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/

Sure. But those greater non-EU numbers would undoubtedly have happened with or without Brexit, so the question is, is it less bad to have those greater numbers this year, or to have those greater numbers of non-EU immigrants PLUS all the EU immigrants per year that we would have seen without Brexit.

And personally, although I'd like to see lower immigration, I feel pretty relaxed about the high 2021 figures because it's very clear they were pushed up by one-off factors (pent up demand after Covid all but destroyed international travel the previous year, Ukrainian refugees, and people from Hong Kong coming in response to the Chinese crackdown there).

 

[Dent]

If there had been evidence to suggest otherwise I may have reconsidered

So in the same post you say both that nothing would make you reconsider, and that if there had been evidence then you may have reconsidered. Which one of those two contradictory statements is it?

 

[Enthusiast]

So in the same post you say both that nothing would make you reconsider, and that if there had been evidence then you may have reconsidered. Which one of those two contradictory statements is it?

I took the question to read "What would it take for you to reconsider? [now]" That is, what would it take for me to tick the box "I voted Leave but have changed my mind". This seemed more likely as I was given details of economic events which, it seemed to have been suggested, were the result of Brexit and may have led to my regret. I didn't read it as "What would it have taken for you to reconsider? [how to vote in 2016]" The answer to that question, if I was asked, is "Quite a lot and almost certainly a change of philosophy and direction that the EU was extremely unlikely to undertake." As I said, I heard nothing between 1992 and 2016 that led me to believe that would happen, which was unsurprising because I didn't expect to.

 

[Annetts key]

Out of curiosity, if any of the people here who wanted brexit were alive when England annexed Wales, or later, when England and Scotland joined to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Or later still, when the union with the Kingdom of Ireland occurred to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, would those unions have been acceptable to you? Or would you have been against such unions?

I’m asking because some members here have said that it’s about the form of government or the way that power or control is exercised that they don’t like about the E.U.

 

[Doppelganger]

Out of curiosity, if any of the people here who wanted brexit were alive when England annexed Wales, or later, when England and Scotland joined to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Or later still, when the union with the Kingdom of Ireland occurred to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, would those unions have been acceptable to you? Or would you have been against such unions?

I’m asking because some members here have said that it’s about the form of government or the way that power or control is exercised that they don’t like about the E.U.

You are not comparing like for like and in fact I would say it is insulting to suggest the subjugation of the Welsh is what the EU are doing.

Moreover, the troubles in Northern Ireland are in many peoples' memories still and before then Ireland fought a war of independence from the UK and then went through a civil war afterwards.

Clearly the EU isn't subjugating anyone, otherwise, how would it be possible for the UK to have left?

 

[Howardh]

There still appears to be an almost paralysis like attitude across the UK establishment when it comes to taking advantage of our new position.

How??

There are one or two businesses up and down the country that would love advice on how to take advantage. The government haven't exactly come forward, so what do you know that they don't?

Trade deals that suit the UK economy not the EU. The total inability of our civil service and senior negotiators to procure decent trade deals with the rest of the World does not look good on them. I can excuse the USA as Biden is so far in bed with the globalists and status quo he was never going to look favourably on the UK. You have to ask though, what exactly are they doing there if they can't produce good trade deals?

Actually controlling our borders. The opportunity is there. However it seems the entire political class are at a loss of how to move forward. Or, as I suspect, is this a deliberate distraction to hide their own lack of ability? Or is it being orchestrated by those above the UK government?

What trade deals are better - or even the same - do we have now that trump the pre-Brexit ones? And you have a huge border with the EU that's uncontrolled - and is likely to stay that way. So why all the effort to keep EU's out when they can simply cross that border?

 

[Doppelganger]

How??

There are one or two businesses up and down the country that would love advice on how to take advantage. The government haven't exactly come forward, so what do you know that they don't?

Government advice is to set up an entity based in the EU. Ireland, France and the Netherlands have benefited most from this nonsense.

Good for them, bad for the UK small business owner.

 

[Howardh]

Government advice is to set up an entity based in the EU. Ireland, France and the Netherlands have benefited most from this nonsense.

Good for them, bad for the UK small business owner.

Didn't Rees-Mogg set up in Dublin? Memory fades, someone confirm/correct.

 

[GS250]

Government advice is to set up an entity based in the EU. Ireland, France and the Netherlands have benefited most from this nonsense.

Good for them, bad for the UK small business owner.

So what Norway effectively do?

 

[Dent]

As I said, I heard nothing between 1992 and 2016 that led me to believe that would happen, which was unsurprising because I didn't expect to.

Were you actually listening with an open mind for any evidence which may mean you need to reconsider?

 

[Annetts key]

You are not comparing like for like and in fact I would say it is insulting to suggest the subjugation of the Welsh is what the EU are doing.

Moreover, the troubles in Northern Ireland are in many peoples' memories still and before then Ireland fought a war of independence from the UK and then went through a civil war afterwards.

Clearly the EU isn't subjugating anyone, otherwise, how would it be possible for the UK to have left?

I’m most definitely not comparing any of the history of the U.K. to the U.K. being a member of the E.U.

And I did not say whether I agreed with or disagreed with what happened in the past with regards to the history of the U.K.

At no point did I say or I imply that the E.U. was or had tried to subjugate any country.

The point I was trying to get at, is, what type of government and where / who do people want to execute the power of government?

Is it local, regional (e.g. Scotland’s parliament), country (Westminster) or some things done by a larger organisation where we have representatives plus our own government has representatives?

Whatever people think about the E.U., it was and remains an organisation that countries can choose to be part of (or not part of).

 

[Bevan Price]

Brexit is turning out to be the disaster I always thought it would be. Whilst I would advocate rejoining as soon as possible, that won't happen anytime soon.
Hopefully we'll soon get a change of government and then we can start co-operating with the EU rather than fighting them.

It is unlikely that EU would want us back -- and even if it did, membership terms would be far less favourable than we used to have. No rebates, and a probable requirement to adopt the Euro currency after a transition period.

 

[eldomtom2]

"Our sovereignty"? All I see happening, thanks at least in part to leaving the EU, is higher costs, more stress, less say than ever in our government's decisions. Throw in the external economic crisis that we now have less say in as a country than ever and I'm failing to understand where sovereignty even comes into it, let alone be "ours".

How has Brexit resulted in the British having less say in their government's decisions?

 

[Annetts key]

It is unlikely that EU would want us back -- and even if it did, membership terms would be far less favourable than we used to have. No rebates, and a probable requirement to adopt the Euro currency after a transition period.

I would love to be able to use the Euro as a currency anywhere within the U.K.

 

[Yew]

"Our sovereignty"? All I see happening, thanks at least in part to leaving the EU, is higher costs, more stress, less say than ever in our government's decisions. Throw in the external economic crisis that we now have less say in as a country than ever and I'm failing to understand where sovereignty even comes into it, let alone be "ours".

The only upside I can see is that the Government used to look for any excuse to blame the EU for problems, and now that's more difficult for them to pull a "We'd love to do that but here's a vaguely plausible but technically avoidable reason why it's the EU's fault"

For example the Blue passports (anyone remember people talking about them before 2014?), it was an EU recommendation, but was completely optional.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2023 ==

So basically then, because it was a bit tricky, we shouldn't have done it. Which somewhat reinforces my point - that the EU retains control of its members by making it difficult for them should they decide to leave.

Is this the same nefarious control that we have a complete veto on?

 

[Howardh]

It is unlikely that EU would want us back -- and even if it did, membership terms would be far less favourable than we used to have. No rebates, and a probable requirement to adopt the Euro currency after a transition period.

Hasn't Barnier said today we'd be welcomed back? Verhofstad? When I get home I'll look up their quotes.
As for the terms, if they want us back it may be on exactly the same terms as before, however I think the Norway single market model is more likely.

 

[duncanp]

Hasn't Barnier said today we'd be welcomed back? Verhofstad? When I get home I'll look up their quotes.
As for the terms, if they want us back it may be on exactly the same terms as before, however I think the Norway single market model is more likely.

The chances of us being allowed back into the EU, as a full member state, on exactly the same terms we had when we left are less than the chances of winning the lottery jackpot.

It is naive to think otherwise.

The Norway single market model is a possibility, maybe as a first step, but then Norway is not a EU member state.

If the UK wanted to rejoin the EU as a full member state, there would likely be conditions imposed, such as no budget rebate, and a commitment to joining Schengen and adopting the Euro within a defined period of time.

 

[Annetts key]

Hasn't Barnier said today we'd be welcomed back? Verhofstad? When I get home I'll look up their quotes.
As for the terms, if they want us back it may be on exactly the same terms as before, however I think the Norway single market model is more likely.

"Let's hope the UK can rejoin, and hopefully Ukraine can join. Why not in five years? Maybe that's a bit optimistic for the UK," Verhofstadt said. At the same time, the politician claimed that the British now consider leaving the EU to be an unfavorable choice not only for the EU but also for their country.

The above comes from a translation of a Polish site, hence why I have not linked to it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2023 ==

UK can rejoin EU ‘any time’, says Michel Barnier

However the link takes you to a article behind a pay wall.

 

[Bantamzen]

How has Brexit resulted in the British having less say in their government's decisions?

Has it increased it? Wasn't that the whole point, to wrestle decision making from Brussels and give it back to the people?

 

[Enthusiast]

Were you actually listening with an open mind for any evidence which may mean you need to reconsider?

Not particularly, no. It was evident by 1992 that the EU was only heading towards "ever closer union" and that nothing was going to stop that. What did catch my eye was that Denmark and Ireland (twice) voted against the adoption of EU Treaties which moved it in that direction. Both countries were asked to "reconsider" after minor tweaks (but not substantial alterations) were made to the texts. I also noted that the "EU Constitution", which was rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands quietly morphed into the Lisbon Treaty (with nothing much more significant than a change of heading). One of the Eurocrats - can't remember who - around at the time of the second Irish referendum (on the Lisbon Treaty) was on record as saying "If the vote is 'Yes' we continue. If the vote is 'No' then on we go." Not for him, the trifling nuisance of opinions voiced by pesky electorates.

Is this the same nefarious control that we have a complete veto on?

There is no power of veto for the large majority of EU decisions. They are agreed by Qualified Majority Voting:

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...are simultaneously,of the total EU population

"When the Council is not acting on a proposal by the Commission or the high representative, a decision is adopted if 72% of the participating Council members, representing at least 65% of the population of the participating member states, vote in favour."

"The 'standard' voting method in the Council:

Qualified majority is the most widely used voting method in the Council."

"It is used when the Council takes decisions during the ordinary legislative procedure, also known as co-decision. About 80% of all EU legislation is adopted with this procedure."

The areas requiring unanimity have been steadily reduced and will probably be ditched entirely in the fullness of time.

I am ideologically opposed to the UK's membership of the EU, regardless of the advantages or disadvantages. I believe it to be a pernicious organisation with a considerable "democratic deficit". Certainly not one that I'd like my country to be a member of or too closely associated with. That, in a nutshell, in my reason for voting to leave. But I think I'd better leave it there because this thread is supposed to be about opinions on how Brexit has turned out, not what happened before it (which has, I imagine, been done to death).

 

[eldomtom2]

Has it increased it? Wasn't that the whole point, to wrestle decision making from Brussels and give it back to the people?

It has increased the areas the government can act in, which in one sense is giving more power to the people and in one sense isn't. Arguing over nebulous definitions like this is not productive.

 

[Doppelganger]

At no point did I say or I imply that the E.U. was or had tried to subjugate any country.

No?

In which case you made an almightily clumsy job of saying otherwise.

The fact is the English subjugated both the Welsh and the Irish, these two occurrences you mention in the context of EU membership, so what else did you mean?

The UK joined the EU (EEC at the time) voluntarily and then left voluntarily, so why try to make a link when now you are back tracking?

The EU isn't this beast you are trying to create, there are still plenty of countries who are still vying to attain EU membership. If the EU was the subjugator then surely there wouldn't be any countries in Europe not part of the EU?

 

[Bantamzen]

It has increased the areas the government can act in, which in one sense is giving more power to the people and in one sense isn't. Arguing over nebulous definitions like this is not productive.

Can you provide some examples of this? I'm particularly interested in those that have provided a positive outcome for UK citizens that would not have been seen had we remained in the EU.