Brexit matters

[DynamicSpirit]

And yet the Leave campaign were describing leaving the Single Market as "Project Fear".

That's not my memory. As I recall, 'Project Fear' was being used to describe the Remain Campaign's general predictions of economic apocalypse if we Brexited: I don't recall it particularly being a reference to leaving the single market.

It's a long time ago now and my memory is getting a little hazy, but I'm sure I remember the Leave campaign doing an awful lot of campaigning about ending free movement. It would therefore seem odd if they were also making a big deal of, that we could stay in the single market - which would necessitate keeping free movement.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That's not my memory. As I recall, 'Project Fear' was being used to describe the Remain Campaign's general predictions of economic apocalypse if we Brexited: I don't recall it particularly being a reference to leaving the single market.

It's a long time ago now and my memory is getting a little hazy, but I'm sure I remember the Leave campaign doing an awful lot of campaigning about ending free movement. It would therefore seem odd if they were also making a big deal of, that we could stay in the single market - which would necessitate keeping free movement.

More than enough quotes from leading Brexiteers about not leaving the single market here - https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...arage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce.

The suggestion that this topic was decided before the vote and that there were not Brexiteers campaigning to leave based on the promise of not leaving the single market is simply historical revisionism.

 

[edwin_m]

There will always be argument on this, but in our democracy only the electorate is considered, and then only the electorate who exercise their vote.

If the electorate was totally unhappy about Brexit then they would not have resoundingly voted for a pro-Brexit government in the subsequent General Election.

I am sorry, but so called 'Soft' Brexit is only Brexit in name, and I don't think this would have been acceptable at all to the Brexiteers. To think it would have been is to misread the country. Only the naive would have voted for Brexit at the referendum, and subsequently the Conservative Government, expecting 'soft' terms.

The 2019 election result is trotted out as an affirmation of Brexit and of Boris Johnson, but due to several factors at play it isn't really either of these. In particular, many people saw a Corbyn-led government as a more unpalatable alternative (though in my view it couldn't have turned out much worse) and Labour was trying to face both ways so voters wishing to stop Brexit weren't even clear that a Labour government would do so. The LibDems were unambiguously anti-Brexit but pretty much out of contention because they overplayed their hand and the fear of letting Corbyn in probably damaged them too. All this was magnified by the FPTP system to produce a large Tory majority that they didn't really deserve.

In your final point you assume that everyone who voted for Brexit wanted the ultimate fundamentalist version. Many would have believed the statements by the Leave campaign referenced above about pursuing other options. It's not clear whether this was a deliberate lie on the part of Leave, differences of opinion amongst them, or simply things gathering momentum later when anybody questioning the trajectory was shouted down as opposing the "will of the people". But in view of the smallness of the majority for any sort of Brexit, I suggest it's highly likely that if the referendum question had included leaving the CU and SM it would not have passed.

 

[najaB]

Just because you don't agree with an argument doesn't stop it from being a rational argument. I see no demonstrably false premises in the arguments I cited.

Let's see:

Freedom of movement was (allegedly) dragging down wages, putting too much pressure on our infrastructure, and making it impossible for the Government to predict population numbers and so plan apporpriate infrastructure for the future.

There are three points here:

• Freedom of movement dragging down wages - a counter argument is that freedom of movement allowed people to move where the wages are higher, which has the effect of increasing wages across the whole EU.
• Increased pressure on infrastructure - UK birth rates are significantly below the replacement rate, without immigration we would have a declining population which would make it impossible to pay pensions, support the health service, etc. Not to mention that EU nationals were net contributors to the Treasury.
• Planning for growth is literally what Governments do. If they claim that they can't then maybe we need to replace them with people who can.

EU regulations were (allegedly) harming business and competitiveness by putting too much regulatory burden on companies.

That same regulation opened up a huge, and more importantly, level market some five times larger for UK businesses. By complying with EU standards they could compete with companies in 26 other countries for customers across those 27 countries on a level playing field.

EU farming/food production regulations and subsidies were (allegedly) harming the environment.

DEFRA had significant powers that they chose not to use.

It was discriminatory that people from EU countries could freely come to the UK but people from non-EU countries couldn't - and the immigration pressures caused by EU freedom of movement were making it politically impossible to ease visa rules for non-EU countries.

Is it any more discriminatory than people from the UK being freely able to travel to Ireland?

The EU had (allegedly) made too much Government too remote from the population - more local Government can be more responsive and more alert to the needs of its people.

Yet, surprisingly, other EU countries are able to have effective local government. That was an "us" problem.

The particular bureaucratic / political structure of the EU was making essential reform too difficult.

And leaving the EU increased our ability to effect reforms how, exactly?

Restoring rules to Westminster could (allegedly) make it easier to reform/change regulation so we could be more responsive to changing circumstances.

That one I have to agree is a change, though I don't see it as necessarily being a benefit, given that members of the current government have expressed the desire to remove worker's rights, and roll back environmental regulation (anyone for raw sewage in the sea?)

A stable, cohesive, society requires Government to be at a level/cover an area that most people feel a strong attachment and sense of loyalty to. Most people feel that sense of loyalty to the UK in a way that people don't feel to the same extent towards the EU (speaking generally of course, obviously there are exceptions). That suggests we should be keeping Government within the UK.

Yes, trust in the UK government has definitely increased since 2016...

Any country can make mistakes - and the Premier paid for that. However, no reason to be embarrassed if you stick with your allies.

Mistakes made with honest intent can be forgiven. There's no forgiving deliberate malintent.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If the electorate was totally unhappy about Brexit then they would not have resoundingly voted for a pro-Brexit government in the subsequent General Election.

But they didn't "resoundingly voted for a pro-Brexit government" in 2019 did they.
The Tories got 43.6% of the vote.
Now yes, that isn't how our elections are run, but that is exactly why you can't use that election result as a judgement on how the electorate felt about Brexit.
Yet more historical revisionism from Brexiteers. No surprise there!

 

[dosxuk]

That's not my memory. As I recall, 'Project Fear' was being used to describe the Remain Campaign's general predictions of economic apocalypse if we Brexited: I don't recall it particularly being a reference to leaving the single market.

"Project Fear" was used as a catch all for all awkward questions or positions from the Remain campaign - sometimes fairly (WW3 anyone?); but mostly because it was a catchy slogan that could be used as a quick response that couldn't be challenged. It was certainly used for much more than just the economic concerns of leaving, including the risks of leaving the single market. Issues with the Northern Ireland border were also similarly dismissed with "we'd never do anything to affect the Good Friday agreement, it's just Project Fear at work again suggesting that there would be any issues there" type statements.

It's a long time ago now and my memory is getting a little hazy, but I'm sure I remember the Leave campaign doing an awful lot of campaigning about ending free movement. It would therefore seem odd if they were also making a big deal of, that we could stay in the single market - which would necessitate keeping free movement.

Remember there were two independent Leave campaigns - and that neither campaign were advocating for a specific type of Brexit - only leaving the EU. That meant they were able to freely and easily hold and defend contradictory positions at will - where those contradictions were exposed this would be quickly dismissed as "details" or the aforementioned "project fear". In fact this ability was a key component of their campaigns - they needed all of the popular parts of Brexit to be clearly achievable, all the awkward bits to be just minor bumps that will be got rid of by a clear majority and that every type of Brexit was achievable by a vote for them, even though many of the types were not mutually compatible.

The confusion caused by having such a vague position is still being demonstrated today - by the Attorney General non-the-less, with her apparent confusion the other week about whether the ECHR was part of the EU.[/QUOTE]

 

[najaB]

I voted to remain, but somewhat unenthusiastically as I saw good and bad arguments on both sides, and I considered myself at the time philosophically Bennite, and obviously Tony Benn and his followers were always opposed to remaining in the EU. If the referendum was re-run today, I'd vote to leave.

Interesting that you say that - you're saying that if the referendum was re-run today, on exactly the same terms (Leave not being defined) you would vote for the chaos that you now know would inevitably result?

 

[RT4038]

And yet the Leave campaign were describing leaving the Single Market as "Project Fear".

The fair way to sort this mess would have been to have a second referendum on exactly what Brexit meant to people (not including a "remain" or "rejoin" option - just the different directions that "Leaving the EU" could entail); or a confirmation referendum where the negotiated deal was put to the general public and either sent back to be renegotiated or agreed.

There was no way that a second referendum was going to happen : what incentive would there be for the EU to give us the best deal if they knew by making things particularly difficult that a second referendum could be swayed to remain? A second referendum was not a politically tenable position for Brexiteers.

And yet multiple leading Brexiteer's campaigned for Brexit exactly on those "soft" terms. So are you admitting Brexit was won by a campaign of lies?

All sorts of things were said as to what was hoped to be in an agreement. Some of these were optimistic, at best. As the EU closed off the various proposals it became clear that the only way to avoid EU control over laws/rules (such as FoM, but other things too) was to leave the SM/CU and negotiate a trade agreement. Such is politics.

 

[WelshBluebird]

All sorts of things were said as to what was hoped to be in an agreement. Some of these were optimistic, at best. As the EU closed off the various proposals it became clear that the only way to avoid EU control over laws/rules (such as FoM, but other things too) was to leave the SM/CU and negotiate a trade agreement. Such is politics.

You said earlier that any kind of "Soft Brexit" wouldn't really be a real Brexit ("only Brexit in name" to use a direct quote) and anyone expecting it was naive.
But now you agree that lots of the discussion before the vote from the leave side was in support of that "soft Brexit".
So which is it? Both can't be true unless of course those Brexiteers were lying through their teeth.

 

[AlterEgo]

And to think that was exactly what we had....

A divine right? Not at all.

 

[edwin_m]

There was no way that a second referendum was going to happen : what incentive would there be for the EU to give us the best deal if they knew by making things particularly difficult that a second referendum could be swayed to remain? A second referendum was not a politically tenable position for Brexiteers.

The EU laid out the options from the start, ranging from full membership through to the Canada deal. They stuck to this despite the give-in-or-I-shoot-myself threats from the UK.

 

[RT4038]

You said earlier that any kind of "Soft Brexit" wouldn't really be a real Brexit ("only Brexit in name" to use a direct quote) and anyone expecting it was naive.
But now you agree that lots of the discussion before the vote from the leave side was in support of that "soft Brexit".
So which is it? Both can't be true.

Those who believed that there could be an end to FoM and EU laws applying to the UK, whilst remaining in the SM / CU were naive to say the least. Anyone who didn't wan't want an end to FoM, EU laws applying in the UK and to remain in SM / CU were playing with fire if they voted Leave. Did we have a referendum just to leave the EU but remain under the control of the EU? No.

It was well known that the referendum was held (effectively) at the behest of Farage and Co, and that was not just to be out of the EU in name only. FoM/EU laws applying here were just a non starter for an acceptable 'soft' Brexit. The EU were not going to budge much (understandably), no matter how much some politicians said they would, and a hard Brexit became inevitable. (which it probably was right from the start). Clearly some politicians were optimistic, if not myopic, but surely only the naive discounted a Hard Brexit as a likely possibility. Be careful what you vote for.

The 2019 election result is trotted out as an affirmation of Brexit and of Boris Johnson, but due to several factors at play it isn't really either of these. In particular, many people saw a Corbyn-led government as a more unpalatable alternative (though in my view it couldn't have turned out much worse) and Labour was trying to face both ways so voters wishing to stop Brexit weren't even clear that a Labour government would do so. The LibDems were unambiguously anti-Brexit but pretty much out of contention because they overplayed their hand and the fear of letting Corbyn in probably damaged them too. All this was magnified by the FPTP system to produce a large Tory majority that they didn't really deserve.

If a hard Brexit had been uppermost in the concern of the people, then the election result would have been different.

Whatever, Hard Brexit is done. This single issue is what the PM really wanted to get over the line, and he did it. He will be gone shortly and likely fade into the shadows.

 

[edwin_m]

Anyone who didn't wan't want an end to FoM, EU laws applying in the UK and to remain in SM / CU were playing with fire if they voted Leave. Did we have a referendum just to leave the EU but remain under the control of the EU? No.

That was what some of the Leave campaign was promising.

It was well known that the referendum was held (effectively) at the behest of Farage and Co, and that was not just to be out of the EU in name only.

Not at the time it wasn't.

Whatever, Hard Brexit is done. This single issue is what the PM really wanted to get over the line, and he did it. He will be gone shortly and likely fade into the shadows.

And this and future generations will be left to clean up the mess while he fades into the shadows of six-figure columns and speeches.

 

[dosxuk]

It was well known that the referendum was held (effectively) at the behest of Farage and Co, and that was not just to be out of the EU in name only.

Would that be this Nigel Farage - https://twitter.com/femi_sorry/status/1118817963874881536 - who spent a significant amount of time extolling the virtues of a Norway or Switzerland style relationship after leaving?

(link is to video of clips of Farage talking about the positives of a Norway style relationship)

 

[RT4038]

That was what some of the Leave campaign was promising.

Then those people shouldn't have voted leave when they didn't really mean it.

 

[MikeWM]

Interesting that you say that - you're saying that if the referendum was re-run today, on exactly the same terms (Leave not being defined) you would vote for the chaos that you now know would inevitably result?

I was going on the premise that we were in the position we are in now and had a referendum to stay as we are or rejoin - in that case, yes I'd vote to stay as we are.

A key part of the reason I eventually decided to vote remain was that being in the EU and having our hands tied somewhat in terms of what the UK government could do, I expected other European governments would be a moderating influence on any 'extreme' government that we may end up with in the UK, particularly a hard-right government that may want to rip up employment laws, human rights laws, etc. But the response to Covid disabused me of that notion - the key other countries of the EU (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland) all had significantly more extreme responses than even we did, and even now they still have the 'Green Pass' (renewed until at least June 2023) and associated nonsense.

So now, yes, I think we are better off out of there. At this point I think the EU represents my interests even less than the UK government is doing.

Whether I'd change my vote if I could go back to 2016 in the knowledge of what would happen as a result over the following few years - that's an interesting question, I'm not entirely sure.

 

[RT4038]

Would that be this Nigel Farage - https://twitter.com/femi_sorry/status/1118817963874881536 - who spent a significant amount of time extolling the virtues of a Norway or Switzerland style relationship after leaving?

(link is to video of clips of Farage talking about the positives of a Norway style relationship)

He wasn't doing the negotiating. As I recall he ran away after the referendum result.

 

[edwin_m]

Then those people shouldn't have voted leave when the didn't really mean it.

They weren't to know that at the time - and that's one of the problems with votes if politicians show such a degree of disregard for the facts.

 

[dosxuk]

He wasn't doing the negotiating. As I recall he ran away after the referendum result.

But you just said that he wanted the referendum to not just be out of the EU in name only? I'm not talking about the negotiating - I'm talking about the same thing as you - what people listening to the likes of Farage were actually voting for. I hear him say that Norway's doing great with few of the drawbacks being in the single market would suggest to people that the single market was a suitable option for our future relationship, you seem to be saying that's naïve and nobody would really think that.

The two don't really add up!

 

[MikeWM]

This is just conjecture and assumption.

To some degree, but I do know some people who voted for Brexit and I can tell you they very much didn't want to stay in the single market, with all that entails for regulation, for example.

As for the customs union, I don't think 99.9% of people knew what that was or even heard of it before the referendum.

This would have been the obvious compromise position, have Brexit, so you can make the "respect the referendum result" claim (despite the misgivings about the referendum many have, see above), but don't have all the restrictions and difficulties Hard Brexit entails.

Any approach has difficulty though. Would we have even been allowed into EFTA, for example? There were conflicting reports at the time. Certainly unless we were serious and enthusiastic about it, it didn't appear it would have happened.

And why should the Hard Brexiters be allowed to have their way on a marginal 52% result, while the Remainers have been completely and utterly ignored with no consideration of their views whatsoever made?

That's a problem with referenda, particularly one that ends up close. I'd strongly agree that 'leave' should have been defined before the referendum, but as it wasn't then we are where we are and people were free to define leave as whatever they felt like.

I'd add that it *was* strongly hinted that leave would mean leaving the single market and customs union. I've debated this before with a 'hard' Brexiteer when I was supporting 'Norway' and at the time I was arguing that this wasn't the case - but he showed me more than enough interviews and articles from 2016 that I had to admit I was wrong, and that was indeed strongly implied, at least by many in the leave campaign.

But in this case, the whole thing is just so unnecessary. There was a simple solution, remaining in the customs union. Like we have done throughout modern times. Then the whole NI question would never have arisen.

I posted an article yesterday (by someone who seems to understand these issues better than me) that argued that wouldn't be sufficient, you need to be in the single market as well. I know Labour were arguing for this as a possible solution throughout 2019, but in retrospect I think they were wrong.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Those who believed that there could be an end to FoM and EU laws applying to the UK, whilst remaining in the SM / CU were naive to say the least.

So people were naive for believing what politicians said? Maybe you are right but Brexiteer politicians were saying that we could leave and stay in the single market.

Did we have a referendum just to leave the EU but remain under the control of the EU? No.

We had a referendum to leave the EU.
We didn't have one on the single market or anything else. Hell most people didn't know what the single market or the customs union or anything else was at the time!

It was well known that the referendum was held (effectively) at the behest of Farage and Co, and that was not just to be out of the EU in name only.

So the same people who said that were weren't voting to leave the single market?

 

[JamesT]

That's a problem with referenda, particularly one that ends up close. I'd strongly agree that 'leave' should have been defined before the referendum, but as it wasn't then we are where we are and people were free to define leave as whatever they felt like.

I'd add that it *was* strongly hinted that leave would mean leaving the single market and customs union. I've debated this before with a 'hard' Brexiteer when I was supporting 'Norway' and at the time I was arguing that this wasn't the case - but he showed me more than enough interviews and articles from 2016 that I had to admit I was wrong, and that was indeed strongly implied, at least by many in the leave campaign.

Though one issue with trying to define Brexit before the referendum was the EU's determination that there could be no negotiation before an Article 50 invocation.
You could propose what you thought a Brexit should look like, but it was certain to change once around the negotiating table.
But once the priority was placed on restricted FoM and the EU insisted the 4 freedoms are indivisible then hard Brexit was inevitable.

 

[RT4038]

They weren't to know that at the time - and that's one of the problems with votes if politicians show such a degree of disregard for the facts.

I agree, but that is how it was. A referendum question that should never have been put in this way. An impossible situation where negotiations couldn't start until Article 50 was invoked, so the politicians couldn't know what was the likely direction, and a second referendum being a shotgun for the EU. However, it was right that the populace was asked about continuing EU membership, because there was considerable underlying unhappiness.

To be fair to the politicians, they all had their own ideas and hopes and these may or may not have coincided with those of the EU. There were not necessarily setting out to dupe or lie but then got carried along with the negotiations and the way they were going.

you seem to be saying that's naïve and nobody would really think that.

Perhaps a lot of naive people (on this subject) around.

So people were naive for believing what politicians said?

Yes - you always have to look behind what the politicians say, and the context.

We had a referendum to leave the EU.
We didn't have one on the single market or anything else. Hell most people didn't know what the single market or the customs union or anything else was at the time!

Got to look what is behind these things, not take them at face value. Naivety and all that.

So the same people who said that were weren't voting to leave the single market?

Quite - we were not voting to leave the single market if the EU will agree to us staying in but without FoM and EU law/rule jurisdiction etc.

 

[Howardh]

A divine right? Not at all.

Well if we didn't have a divine right, can we have back what we had? Seemed OK to me.

 

[MikeWM]

Though one issue with trying to define Brexit before the referendum was the EU's determination that there could be no negotiation before an Article 50 invocation.
You could propose what you thought a Brexit should look like, but it was certain to change once around the negotiating table.
But once the priority was placed on restricted FoM and the EU insisted the 4 freedoms are indivisible then hard Brexit was inevitable.

This is true - indeed, you can see the EU's point here, they don't want to make leaving look attractive, and giving guidance as to what leave may look like ahead of time may do so.

I'm not sure that issue was set out very clearly beforehand though. I do think there was probably an element of *deliberate* ambiguity on the leave side on details, and I do understand why some people on the Remain side aren't happy about that.

 

[RT4038]

This is true - indeed, you can see the EU's point here, they don't want to make leaving look attractive, and giving guidance as to what leave may look like ahead of time may do so.

Although that could work equally well the other way - make leaving look so unattractive that it would effect the referendum result the other way?

I'm not sure that issue was set out very clearly beforehand though. I do think there was probably an element of *deliberate* ambiguity on the leave side on details, and I do understand why some people on the Remain side aren't happy about that.

I also understand why some people on the Remain side aren't happy - they didn't get their preference. If the result had gone the other way, there would be the same level of unhappiness in that direction, and no doubt complaints about politicians utterances, lies, etc etc. It goes with the territory.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2022 ==

Well if we didn't have a divine right, can we have back what we had? Seemed OK to me.

You'll have to start campaigning.....

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes - you always have to look behind what the politicians say, and the context.
Got to look what is behind these things, not take them at face value. Naivety and all that.

They literally said that "nobody is talking about leaving the single market" and campaigned on the idea of us being like Norway etc etc.
Now yes there is being naiive, but there's also politicians simply lying through their teeth and misleading the general public.
Surely you can see that here?
People would have voted for Brexit based on what these people were saying. And it isn't much of a reach to say, given the close vote, that maybe those people are the ones who made the difference in the result.

Quite - we were not voting to leave the single market if the EU will agree to us staying in but without FoM and EU law/rule jurisdiction etc.

Nope there were no caveats. Brexiteers were literally saying we were not voting to leave the single market. At all. No ifs or buts.
Unless of course you are saying they lied and misled people.

 

[dosxuk]

Not being able to negotiate before Article 50 was submitted is a red herring. There was nothing stopping the UK Government setting out their plans before Article 50, or even the referendum - in fact, if they had done so, they wouldn't have ended up wasting so many months of potential negotiation time trying to work out exactly what it is we did want, while the EU sat there twiddling their thumbs.

The negotiation period is supposed to be to confirm the details and get them agreed and signed off. It's not supposed to be the point where you start working out what things will look like after exiting.

Remember this is the same team who had "have cake & eat it" written down as a negotiating strategy (along with "Difficult on article 50 implementation – Barnier wants to see what deal looks like first")

 

[JamesT]

They literally said that "nobody is talking about leaving the single market" and campaigned on the idea of us being like Norway etc etc.
Now yes there is being naiive, but there's also politicians simply lying through their teeth and misleading the general public.
Surely you can see that here?
People would have voted for Brexit based on what these people were saying. And it isn't much of a reach to say, given the close vote, that maybe those people are the ones who made the difference in the result.

Nope there were no caveats. Brexiteers were literally saying we were not voting to leave the single market. At all. No ifs or buts.
Unless of course you are saying they lied and misled people.

Some Brexiteers may have been saying that, others were saying differently, e.g. http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.

Or this interview with Michael Gove in May 2016 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08051604.pdf

MG: No. We should be outside the single market. We should have
access to the single market, but we should not be governed by
the rules that the European Court of Justice imposes on us, which
cost business and restrict freedom.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Some Brexiteers may have been saying that

So some Brexiteers were campaigning on leaving the EU but staying in the single market. We are in agreement there.
So based on that:

1. It is fair to say that maybe some people who voted for Brexit wanted to stay in the single market too. And thus it is likely there was never a majority for leaving it, despite what Brexiteers say.
2. Given some Brexiteers wanted to leave the EU but stay in the single market, this idea that doing so wouldn't be a "Real Brexit" is simply rubbish - as at least some people who wanted Brexit wanted that option.