Brexit matters

[Dave1987]

From what I can gather from Brexiteers they want and demand the following:

• Full control of borders of the UK but expect unfettered access to the EU
• Full ability to diverge from EU rules of the single market and customs union but still expect to be able to trade freely with the EU.
• Full access to EU financial markets but have the ability to diverge as much as the UK wants whilst still having full access to EU financial markets.
• The ability to break international law and break the agreements at the will of the UK Govt but come down like a sledgehammer if the EU does the same.

And we wonder why so so many Europeans really despise the UK now. Interestingly the exact opposite of what Farage predicted has happened. Far from falling apart and destroying itself the EU has actually ended up more together than they were before.

Lets not forget BoJo was perfectly happy to break international law at the end of 2020, and was cheered on by Brexiteers, so accusations of breaking rules by Brexiteers amount to sheer hypocrisy.

 

[najaB]

And we wonder why so so many Europeans really despise the UK now.

From my conversations, they don't despise us as much as they have pity for us.

 

[RT4038]

From what I can gather from Brexiteers they want and demand the following:

• Full control of borders of the UK but expect unfettered access to the EU
• Full ability to diverge from EU rules of the single market and customs union but still expect to be able to trade freely with the EU.
• Full access to EU financial markets but have the ability to diverge as much as the UK wants whilst still having full access to EU financial markets.
• The ability to break international law and break the agreements at the will of the UK Govt but come down like a sledgehammer if the EU does the same.

And we wonder why so so many Europeans really despise the UK now. Interestingly the exact opposite of what Farage predicted has happened. Far from falling apart and destroying itself the EU has actually ended up more together than they were before.

Lets not forget BoJo was perfectly happy to break international law at the end of 2020, and was cheered on by Brexiteers, so accusations of breaking rules by Brexiteers amount to sheer hypocrisy.

If you are in a club / gang and don't like the direction that the club / gang is going, and realise that you are not going to change this direction because it suits the majority of club / gang members, the only options are put up or ship out. If you ship out, obviously you are going to want to retain as much of the advantages of the club / gang as possible. Of course they want their cake and eat it, like everybody else. No harm in that, whether they'll get it is another matter.

The Irish border question is intractable in the short term. I am sure both the EU and UK realised that the agreement reached was highly unsatisfactory. There was no alternative if Brexit inc withdrawal from SM/CU was to be achieved by 1.1.21, and any delay risked losing the opportunity for ever.
Rightly, everyone and their dog came down on the UK Government with a sledgehammer on the issue of breaking international law and agreements. They should therefore expect the same when the boot is on the other foot.

If you leave a club / gang (or refuse to join when invited) they are going to be annoyed with you. Unless circumstances change (which they usually will) , for a very long time. There are enough precedents in history, and obviously voters would have taken this into account at the referendum.

 

[najaB]

There was no alternative if Brexit inc withdrawal from SM/CU was to be achieved by 1.1.21, and any delay risked losing the opportunity for ever.

That deadline was imposed by the UK.

There are enough precedents in history, and obviously voters would have taken this into account at the referendum.

Do you not accept that at least some portion of the electorate would have believed David Davis, et. al. when they said that "of course" we will remain in the single market?

 

[XAM2175]

Rightly, everyone and their dog came down on the UK Government with a sledgehammer on the issue of breaking international law and agreements. They should therefore expect the same when the boot is on the other foot.

The EU didn't break law or agreement, though, and nor did they intend to - they briefly proposed to use powers provided to them by Article 16 of the Withdrawal Agreement. It was a disproportionate response, and one that was manifestly unwise, but not comparable to the actions and intents on the UK side.

 

[najaB]

It was a disproportionate response, and one that was manifestly unwise, but not comparable to the actions and intents on the UK side.

To be fair, the UK Government only intended to break the law in a limited and very specific way.

 

[Tester]

If you leave a club / gang (or refuse to join when invited) they are going to be annoyed with you. Unless circumstances change (which they usually will) , for a very long time. There are enough precedents in history, and obviously voters would have taken this into account at the referendum.

To say that obviously voters would have applied historical precedents in taking a particular thing into account at the referendum is, to put it mildly, somewhat of a stretch.

 

[matacaster]

I think part of the issue for many older people was the way that the initial 'common market' concept morphed into what the EU is now and how the future direction looked. Its very difficult to judge but at some point you may feel you need to take a stand, otherwise it may be too late. This concept might be clear to rail unions who find that a number of minor changes when aggregated over time are deemed unacceptable - yet each one or two of those changes would not be considered by many to be worthy of a strike.

 

[jon0844]

I think part of the issue for many older people was the way that the initial 'common market' concept morphed into what the EU is now and how the future direction looked. Its very difficult to judge but at some point you may feel you need to take a stand, otherwise it may be too late. This concept might be clear to rail unions who find that a number of minor changes when aggregated over time are deemed unacceptable - yet each one or two of those changes would not be considered by many to be worthy of a strike.

I am really not sure why older people would be that bothered, especially those who had retired or were close to (especially if they want to travel in retirement and maybe even relocate to a house in Spain, France, Italy etc). I do think that all the comments about 'charity begins at home, let's look out for ourselves first' and comments about the country being overrun by foreigners/immigrants had far more to do with it.

Oh and those who thought it was just a protest vote to stick it to the Tories over austerity. Oh the irony!

Dave1987 nailed it above. We wanted to stop foreigners having the same rights as us in the UK, but not the other way around.

French TV has been stating that our problems are going to hurt us, as the extra cost and delay of importing goods from the UK means many businesses are now seeing that buying elsewhere in Europe is now the same cost, even cheaper, so they are seeking to change their supply chains and probably won't go back once they set them up.

 

[JonasB]

And we wonder why so so many Europeans really despise the UK now.

From my conversations, they don't despise us as much as they have pity for us.

Despise the UK in the way it is being run now? I guess you could say that. The UK as a country has shown that they can't be trusted. But for the people of the UK, it is more pity and certainly no despise.

 

[21C101]

One early win looks to be the legalisation of GM food in the UK, which the EU would not countenance. I cannot think of a better way of reducing poverty than making food cheaper.

"Imagine serving up Brussels sprouts for dinner and your children actually enjoying them. Or, as a nut-allergy sufferer, being able to spread peanut butter on your morning toast. Or helping prevent heart disease merely by eating a tomato. In the not-too-distant future these could become reality. Thanks to a new review into the use of genetically modified (GM) – and its more modern sister, gene-edited (GE) – foods in the UK, your shopping basket could soon start to look very different."

How Brexit could change what we eat - for the better

For years, GM food has been dubbed ‘Frankenfood'. Now, unshackled by EU restrictions, your shopping basket could look quite different

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[najaB]

One early win looks to be the legalisation of GM food in the UK, which the EU would not countenance.

As usual, the truth is somewhat different.

The EU controls the import and marketing of GMOs bloc-wide, the same as they do with any agricultural products. However, the decision of if to allow or deny the cultivation of GMOs and their use in food is up to the individual member states, subject to appropriate labelling that allows consumers to make an informed decision as to what they eat.

GMO legislation

The European Union has established a legal framework to ensure that the development of modern biotechnology, and more specifically of GMOs, takes...

ec.europa.eu

I cannot think of a better way of reducing poverty than making food cheaper.

I agree. However, a major trend with GMOs - at least in the USA - has nothing to do with making food cheaper to produce, but rather is intended to increase the profit margins of large agri-business. Case in point, Monsanto's attempt to create Roundup-resistant corn and soy, use of which locked the farmers into using Roundup insecticide, or their pushing terminator seeds (seed that produces plants that don't have fertile seeds) into less developed countries, which means that the age-old practice of retaining some of the harvest to plant the next year is broken - forcing farmers to buy more seeds...

 

[Dave1987]

Sorry to burst your bubble on this @21C101 but George Eustace has already pledged that the UK will not be lowering food standards post Brexit, that is unless he point blank lied on camera. We are all ver very well aware how much the likes of the Telegraph are trying to push out the post Brexit triumph agenda but it isn’t really working yet. And as much as you Brexiteers like to call the EU a protectionist racket I wonder how many people in Cornwall would be raging with fury if the protections in place for the Cornish pasty were removed.

 

[Ediswan]

However, a major trend with GMOs - at least in the USA - has nothing to do with making food cheaper to produce, but rather is intended to increase the profit margins of large agri-business. Case in point, Monsanto's attempt to create Roundup-resistant corn and soy, use of which locked the farmers into using Roundup insecticide, or their pushing terminator seeds (seed that produces plants that don't have fertile seeds) into less developed countries, which means that the age-old practice of retaining some of the harvest to plant the next year is broken - forcing farmers to buy more seeds...

I have no objection to GMOs as such. It is, as you identify, the underying business model which can be nasty. By comparison, 'Golden Rice' is doing a lot better. Not perfect, but better.

 

[SHD]

Besides, which self respecting Brexiteer will actually cook _Brussels_ sprouts, even genetically modified ones?

 

[edwin_m]

Besides, which self respecting Brexiteer will actually cook _Brussels_ sprouts, even genetically modified ones?

"Freedom sprouts"

 

[RT4038]

That deadline was imposed by the UK.

The deadline could have been extended to 1.1.31 and the Irish border arrangements still not been settled. The Brexiteers knew they only had a short window to get Brexit (inc exit of SM/CU conditions) done, and any delay ran the risk of the chance being lost for a lifetime.

Do you not accept that at least some portion of the electorate would have believed David Davis, et. al. when they said that "of course" we will remain in the single market?

Of course we'll stay in the single market, in the improbable scenario of the EU allowing it whilst releasing us from the conditions we don't like. Some people may have thought that this scenario may have come about, some people may have thought that leaving the EU but remaining in the SM/CU with original conditions was a possible option. Sadly they were mistaken.

To say that obviously voters would have applied historical precedents in taking a particular thing into account at the referendum is, to put it mildly, somewhat of a stretch.

They didn't need to apply historical precedents - viewing a few editions of 'The Sweeney' or similar would give them an indication of the likely outcome of leaving a club / gang.

I am really not sure why older people would be that bothered, especially those who had retired or were close to (especially if they want to travel in retirement and maybe even relocate to a house in Spain, France, Italy etc). I do think that all the comments about 'charity begins at home, let's look out for ourselves first' and comments about the country being overrun by foreigners/immigrants had far more to do with it.

Oh and those who thought it was just a protest vote to stick it to the Tories over austerity. Oh the irony!

I think some perspective is needed - over half of the population of E&W who bothered to vote, voted to leave. This rather indicates some fairly strong feelings of a lot of people. In the round, the number of older people desiring to retire to Spain, France, Italy is fairly small. It is a mistake to write off the Brexit voters as a bunch of stupid, ignorant people who want the 50s back. It was over half the population.
What was a mistake, by both our and EU leaders, was to make assumptions that the underlying issues were just Anglo-Saxon grumbling and sweeping under the carpet, until it was too late.

Despise the UK in the way it is being run now? I guess you could say that. The UK as a country has shown that they can't be trusted. But for the people of the UK, it is more pity and certainly no despise.

The phrase 'Perfidious Albion' applied to the English is not for nothing.

 

[najaB]

Some people may have thought that this scenario may have come about, some people may have thought that leaving the EU but remaining in the SM/CU with original conditions was a possible option. Sadly they were mistaken.

I'm sorry but you can't have "voters would have taken this into account" and "some people may have thought". It's one or the other - either they knew what they were voting for, or they were mistaken.

 

[Tester]

They didn't need to apply historical precedents - viewing a few editions of 'The Sweeney' or similar would give them an indication of the likely outcome of leaving a club / gang.

This is getting confusing.

Previously you said that obviously voters would have taken historical precedents into account when deciding to 'leave a club / gang'.

Now it seems to be that instead they would have watched a fictional TV series, and decided that if leaving a club / gang means getting shot up, they want some of that!

I have to admire your command of satire, because otherwise we are firmly through the looking glass.

 

[RT4038]

I'm sorry but you can't have "voters would have taken this into account" and "some people may have thought". It's one or the other - either they knew what they were voting for, or they were mistaken.

I expect that everyone had their own idea of what they were voting for, similar to any other election. As with any political policy - buyer beware.

Now it seems to be that instead they would have watched a fictional TV series, and decided that if leaving a club / gang means getting shot up, they want some of that!

If they didn't think about the possible results of leaving the (EU) club / gang, and there are plenty of examples, both historical and fictional, then they may have had a rude awakening.
Did anyone really think that the UK was likely to get the benefits of EU membership without the conditions? Some politicians may have peddled that this scenario may have been possible, but really?

 

[GusB]

One early win looks to be the legalisation of GM food in the UK, which the EU would not countenance. I cannot think of a better way of reducing poverty than making food cheaper.

"Imagine serving up Brussels sprouts for dinner and your children actually enjoying them. Or, as a nut-allergy sufferer, being able to spread peanut butter on your morning toast. Or helping prevent heart disease merely by eating a tomato. In the not-too-distant future these could become reality. Thanks to a new review into the use of genetically modified (GM) – and its more modern sister, gene-edited (GE) – foods in the UK, your shopping basket could soon start to look very different."

How Brexit could change what we eat - for the better

For years, GM food has been dubbed ‘Frankenfood'. Now, unshackled by EU restrictions, your shopping basket could look quite different

www.telegraph.co.uk

I've heard it all now. If you are really serious about reducing poverty, then you should be advocating for an increase in the amount that people earn, rather than making food cheaper.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2021 ==

Did anyone really think that the UK was likely to get the benefits of EU membership without the conditions? Some politicians may have peddled that this scenario may have been possible, but really?

That's the narrative that was peddled by the Brexiteers, though - the "Norway option" etc. I'd have settled for the UK being outside the EU if I'd believed that we'd still be able to retain certain benefits, but there was no certainty.

 

[alex397]

That's the narrative that was peddled by the Brexiteers, though - the "Norway option" etc. I'd have settled for the UK being outside the EU if I'd believed that we'd still be able to retain certain benefits, but there was no certainty.

I also would have accepted it more if that is what we ended up with, a close relationship like Norway has.
Brexit should have been about compromise - while leave won, it was very marginal as we know. Having a quite a hard Brexit like we have can only result in division.

 

[najaB]

Did anyone really think that the UK was likely to get the benefits of EU membership without the conditions? Some politicians may have peddled that this scenario may have been possible, but really?

So that's the great prize of Brexit then. We get to throw of the shackles of an unelected European government and restore the sovereignty of our Parliament of liars.

 

[jon0844]

I think some perspective is needed - over half of the population of E&W who bothered to vote, voted to leave. This rather indicates some fairly strong feelings of a lot of people. In the round, the number of older people desiring to retire to Spain, France, Italy is fairly small. It is a mistake to write off the Brexit voters as a bunch of stupid, ignorant people who want the 50s back. It was over half the population.
What was a mistake, by both our and EU leaders, was to make assumptions that the underlying issues were just Anglo-Saxon grumbling and sweeping under the carpet, until it was too late.

Over half the population would have been over 30 million people (as you say, it's of those who bothered to vote - and those that didn't presumably were happy to keep things as they were), so it wasn't anywhere near half. Of course there were strong feelings; we had people telling us the EU was evil, that they were all unelected, that money was being diverted from the EU, that we were about to be overrun by muslims coming in via Turkey (just seconds away from joining the EU), and two years of video footage from reporters in France showing people trying to get into the UK, and other video of people coming into Europe seeking asylum and wanting to make it to the UK (either direct, or going via Sweden to get citizenship and then come to the UK).

People were quite likely terrified and of the opinion that all of the things they've read in the Daily Mail and Express about immigration was going to come true.

I do not agree that most people who voted leave actually sought to investigate the pros and cons of the EU, given they'd not said much - if anything - before the referendum. Indeed, immigration was far higher up the list of concerns for voters in elections, followed by traditional things like education and policing (things the EU has little to nothing to do with).

Nigel Farage started this. The media, sadly, gave him sufficient media attention to make him seem more important than he was/is. Now he's off trying to get people to invest in his new wealth fund to profit from Brexit and he's lost interest in telling us about all those dinghies coming in to Dover. Funny that.

 

[RT4038]

(as you say, it's of those who bothered to vote - and those that didn't presumably were happy to keep things as they were)

I don't think that is a reasonable presumption. Some may, but others may have been happy either way. If you don't vote, you don't get counted.

Of course there were strong feelings; we had people telling us the EU was evil, that they were all unelected, that money was being diverted from the EU, that we were about to be overrun by muslims coming in via Turkey (just seconds away from joining the EU), and two years of video footage from reporters in France showing people trying to get into the UK, and other video of people coming into Europe seeking asylum and wanting to make it to the UK (either direct, or going via Sweden to get citizenship and then come to the UK).

People were quite likely terrified and of the opinion that all of the things they've read in the Daily Mail and Express about immigration was going to come true.

That is the way of politics. I can only conclude that the Brexiteers did a more convincing job than the pro-EU camp. Admittedly being 'for' the status quo is more difficult than being 'against', but that has always been true. Too much complacency somewhere.

I do not agree that most people who voted leave actually sought to investigate the pros and cons of the EU, given they'd not said much - if anything - before the referendum. Indeed, immigration was far higher up the list of concerns for voters in elections, followed by traditional things like education and policing (things the EU has little to nothing to do with).

I agree that they probably didn't - but that is their look out. They would have done if they were to make a properly informed decision. Bit like buying a new piece of technical kit - the salesman concentrates solely on what it might do for you, not the downsides. Some people read up and make an informed decision, lots don't.

Nigel Farage started this. The media, sadly, gave him sufficient media attention to make him seem more important than he was/is. Now he's off trying to get people to invest in his new wealth fund to profit from Brexit and he's lost interest in telling us about all those dinghies coming in to Dover. Funny that.

Just par for the course, see my post #1,880.

 

[Gostav]

I think many British didn't think much more about any long term effects after Brexit or not inaccurate. For example, if asked some people who support Brexit such as some anti-immigrants and usually got similar answers: People don't like "immigration" snatched the local jobs, but who will do those low-income work? People said Britain will be great again, but how to do that? A nation that claims to be fully independent is cannot only live on financial but do they like to see any new factory build close to their house? Do they like to see more budget is invested in the navy?

 

[JonasB]

I had not planned to post in this thread, but reading it has been very interesting. But since I've already made a few posts why not continue.

There is a small Scottish cheese company that makes great cheeses, and I usually buy one or two to bring back home every time I'm in Scotland. But that is no longer possible. Of course I could apply for the necessary permits to import cheese, but I'm not going to do that for a 200 g piece of cheese. They will not go bankrupt selling 2-3 less cheeses per year, but I think they would rather sell them than not sell them. And I would prefer to be able to bring back a cheese or two. So in the end we are both worse off.

 

[najaB]

They will not go bankrupt selling 2-3 less cheeses per year, but I think they would rather sell them than not sell them. And I would prefer to be able to bring back a cheese or two. So in the end we are both worse off.

A little story that sums up Brexit very well. pro-Brexit people often say things like "We'll be fine outside the EU, anyone who suggests anything otherwise is anti the UK". *

Which, to me, misses the point: yes, both the UK and the UK will survive, but we'll both be a bit worse off. And for what?

* Interestingly, many of those same people are happy to predict that the UK leaving will cause the breakup of the EU.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think that is a reasonable presumption. Some may, but others may have been happy either way. If you don't vote, you don't get counted.

I agree that they probably didn't - but that is their look out. They would have done if they were to make a properly informed decision. Bit like buying a new piece of technical kit - the salesman concentrates solely on what it might do for you, not the downsides. Some people read up and make an informed decision, lots don't.

Two more reasons why there should have been a further referendum to verify that more people supported the leaving arrangements than would have preferred to remain. Which going by opinion polls would have resulted in remaining, but Leave might have won if the proposed arrangements had involved keeping closer ties.

 

[RT4038]

Two more reasons why there should have been a further referendum to verify that more people supported the leaving arrangements than would have preferred to remain. Which going by opinion polls would have resulted in remaining, but Leave might have won if the proposed arrangements had involved keeping closer ties.

Maybe if there had been referenda at both the 1992 and 2007 changes to the EEC/EU then we would not have had the 2016 one at all?