Brexit matters

[REVUpminster]

Err, point of order, did we not rely on Johnny Foreigner during WWII. We had them flying Spitfires and Hurricanes, fighting on the front lines. And of course on the ships of the convoys and in the foreign ports where the ships were loaded. Oh, and we were also supplied with tanks and other military equipment…

A bit disrespectful to the Brits killed on the Atlantic and Artic convoys and in the Battle of Britain. which also had American pilots.

We were the Ukraine of the time where Brits are being killed today.

If Putin blocks the gas completely then world war could break out. Wars always start (except for the odd ideological war) because another country has something another country has. Japan was in Korea and China for raw materials such as food and Germany needed oil and other raw materials. Britain, France, Dutch, Portuguese and others had already fought their wars creating their empires for raw materials.

 

[najaB]

Er, the majority of the electorate did not vote to stay in the European Union either.

I know. The point is that the off-touted "will of the people" is a weak arguement for the type of Brexit that we have ended up with.

If Putin blocks the gas completely then world war could break out.

I doubt it would come to world war. We are hardly likely to invade Russia to take over their oil and gas fields.

 

[Cdd89]

According to today’s Grauniad (sorry, I can’t do a link) Rees-Mogg is refusing to sign off the £800,000 budget of a campaign to attract foreign visitors, seemingly because he personally doesn’t have faith in such campaigns. Seeing that £800,000 is a minuscule sum by Whitehall standards, he seems to have a strange set of values.

I found the article, but one thing stuck out to me in the following quote:

The planned advertising blitz is aimed at bringing back tourists from key international markets including India, China, Australia, Japan and Canada to boost visitor numbers in the wake of the pandemic.

How many tourists from China are we likely to receive? Also I personally think we should be restricting visa-free travel from countries that won’t let us in (eg Japan) as a reciprocal measure.

That said, I agree in general that blocking it is very backward. Other countries advertise heavily abroad and people will simply go there instead.

 

[najaB]

How many tourists from China are we likely to receive?

Had you taken a wander around any major tourist destination in 2019 you wouldn't be asking that question! You'd be more likely to wonder if anyone was left in China.

 

[Gostav]

Had you taken a wander around any major tourist destination in 2019 you wouldn't be asking that question! You'd be more likely to wonder if anyone was left in China.

Considering China has a population of 1.4 billion, this is really a small number. The destination of most international tourists from China before 2020 was Japan and many train announcements have Chinese language.

 

[Cdd89]

Had you taken a wander around any major tourist destination in 2019 you wouldn't be asking that question

Being a regular on the Chiltern line via Bicester Village, I don’t disagree!

But I question the wisdom of trying to attract visitors from China in 2022

 

[DynamicSpirit]

According to today’s Grauniad (sorry, I can’t do a link) Rees-Mogg is refusing to sign off the £800,000 budget of a campaign to attract foreign visitors, seemingly because he personally doesn’t have faith in such campaigns. Seeing that £800,000 is a minuscule sum by Whitehall standards, he seems to have a strange set of values.

The 'strange set of values' that you are referring to appears to be a desire not to waste money on something that he regards as likely to be ineffective. The article makes it very clear that his motivation is not some weird desire to stop people coming, but an opinion that spending the £800K would make no difference (link):

Rees-Mogg, who is tipped to take over as business secretary under Liz Truss, is understood to be sceptical of government advertising campaigns in general and to have doubts about the value of tourism promotions in countries with populations that may decide to travel to Britain regardless.

 

[najaB]

The 'strange set of values' that you are referring to appears to be a desire not to waste money on something that he regards as likely to be ineffective. The article makes it very clear that his motivation is not some weird desire to stop people coming, but an opinion that spending the £800K would make no difference

Yet he was happy to be part of a Cabinet that approved spending £120 million on an art festival that attracted 300,000 visitors.

 

[edwin_m]

Er, the majority of the electorate did not vote to stay in the European Union either.

It's usually the case that people who are against the current situation are more motivated to vote for something different than people who are content are to vote to keep it. So it's reasonable to expect that if those non-voters had voted then they would have inclined towards remain. Especially as the remain campaign was so laid-back and everyone seemed to assume they would walk it.

 

[Annetts key]

A bit disrespectful to the Brits killed on the Atlantic and Artic convoys and in the Battle of Britain. which also had American pilots.

Not sure if this was aimed at me. But if it was, absolutely no disrespect directed at any nationality. Just six metres from where I am sat, is a graveyard where various nationalities are burred who died during WWII.

If Putin blocks the gas completely then world war could break out.

Could, maybe, but unlikely I think.

Countries should be moving away from using fossil fuels like coal, oil and ‘natural’ gas. Only this week, more wind turbines came online in the U.K.

Rather than spending money on buying oil and gas, countries should be investing in other energy sources, including renewables and thermal heat systems. We already know how to store heat in sand. Now we need large scale heat storage systems.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yet he was happy to be part of a Cabinet that approved spending £120 million on an art festival that attracted 300,000 visitors.

I'm not sure which decision/festival you're referring to, but are you claiming that Rees Mogg personally approved of spending that £120M?

 

[najaB]

I'm not sure which decision/festival you're referring to, but are you claiming that Rees Mogg personally approved of spending that £120M?

Unboxed.

He may well not have personally approved it (hint: he was a massive supporter of the idea), but the principle of collective responsibility applies. If he was as fundamentally opposed government money being spent on things that produce little returns as he claims to be then he should have resigned from the Cabinet.

 

[RT4038]

It's usually the case that people who are against the current situation are more motivated to vote for something different than people who are content are to vote to keep it. So it's reasonable to expect that if those non-voters had voted then they would have inclined towards remain. Especially as the remain campaign was so laid-back and everyone seemed to assume they would walk it.

It doesn't matter whether it is thought reasonable or not. Democracy does not work that way. The whole point of a poll is for voters to make their view known and counted. The views of those who did not bother to vote are simply not considered and cannot be 'claimed' by either side (apart from 'equally'). At best they can be thought of as not caring either way.

 

[duncanp]

It's usually the case that people who are against the current situation are more motivated to vote for something different than people who are content are to vote to keep it. So it's reasonable to expect that if those non-voters had voted then they would have inclined towards remain. Especially as the remain campaign was so laid-back and everyone seemed to assume they would walk it.

That is a false assumption, and one used by Remainers to try and justify overturning the 2016 referendum result.

The only thing you can reasonably assume about those who didn't vote is that opinions are split as per the latest opinion polls.

You certanly can't make assumptions about the intentions of those who didn't vote just because the result of an election or referendum didn't go the way you wanted it to.

 

[najaB]

That is a false assumption, and one used by Remainers to try and justify overturning the 2016 referendum result.

I can't speak for others, but I am not suggesting that the referendum result should simply have been ignored. However, a 3.8% margin on a vote where 27.8% of the electorate didn't vote can hardly be justified as the clear "will of the people". Especially when trying to justify a hard Brexit (leaving the CU and SM), or a no-deal Brexit as we know that some portion of those who voted in favour of Brexit did so because they believed it when those in the Leave campaign said things like "only a madman would leave the Common Market" or "Nobody is threatening our place in the Common Market". Yes, politicians lie, and yes those people were perhaps naïve to believe them, but we know that people did believe them.

I find it instructive that those who stood the most to gain from Brexit were so dead-set against a confirmatory vote given that they were so convinced that it truly reflected what the public really wanted.

Edit: Replace "Common Market" with "Single Market" in the above.

 

[Doppelganger]

I can't speak for others, but I am not suggesting that the referendum result should simply have been ignored. However, a 3.8% margin on a vote where 27.8% of the electorate didn't vote can hardly be justified as the clear "will of the people". Especially when trying to justify a hard Brexit (leaving the CU and SM), or a no-deal Brexit as we know that some portion of those who voted in favour of Brexit did so because they believed it when those in the Leave campaign said things like "only a madman would leave the Common Market" or "Nobody is threatening our place in the Common Market". Yes, politicians lie, and yes those people were perhaps naïve to believe them, but we know that people did believe them.

I find it instructive that those who stood the most to gain from Brexit were so dead-set against a confirmatory vote given that they were so convinced that it truly reflected what the public really wanted.

And let's not forget, the referendum was only advisory in nature.

 

[Enthusiast]

And let's not forget, the referendum was only advisory in nature.

Indeed it was. And whilst I always advocate not believing a word that politicians utter, there's always this:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

It would have been, frankly, unthinkable for the government to simply say "Well, thanks to you 33m souls for giving us your opinion. However, we're going to ignore it." As far as remaining in the SM and/or CU goes, I really don't know where that idea originates from. Those two institutions are the EU, and vice versa. Yes, there are a few non-EU-members which subscribe to one or the other, but generally, nations that are not EU members do not subscribe to either. The idea of leaving the EU was that the UK should not be bound by any of its institutions. Once again, anybody believing politicians (or anybody else) who told them the UK would leave the EU but remain bound by the rules of two of its most important institutions was somewhat foolish.

 

[edwin_m]

It would have been, frankly, unthinkable for the government to simply say "Well, thanks to you 33m souls for giving us your opinion. However, we're going to ignore it." As far as remaining in the SM and/or CU goes, I really don't know where that idea originates from. Those two institutions are the EU, and vice versa. Yes, there are a few non-EU-members which subscribe to one or the other, but generally, nations that are not EU members do not subscribe to either. The idea of leaving the EU was that the UK should not be bound by any of its institutions. Once again, anybody believing politicians (or anybody else) who told them the UK would leave the EU but remain bound by the rules of two of its most important institutions was somewhat foolish.

You appear to be assuming that each member of the population has the ability, time and inclination to delve into these complex issues and make their own decision. I suggest that is a false assumption.

If they had some interest in that sort of detail then they might have taken account of the Leave campaigners saying that there was no question of leaving the SM and CU as quoted upthread. Staying in both but ceasing to be a member would have made clear that the UK was not part of the political convergence of Europe, which may have been all many Leave voters wanted at the time. Departure from the SM and CU only really became a demand after the referendum when the Leave campaign started pushing the May government that way as the price for continued support.

The assertion that you can't be out of the EU without being outside the SM and CU is amply disproved by the existence of non-members who participate in one or the other.

 

[AY1975]

Indeed it was. And whilst I always advocate not believing a word that politicians utter, there's always this:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

Yes, David Cameron did say in the pro-EU pamphlet that was sent to every home in the UK that it would be "a once in a lifetime decision" and that "the Government will implement what you decide".

But technically he was overstepping his authority by saying that, on two counts. Firstly, in a briefing on the Referendum Bill he had told Parliament that the referendum was to be advisory only and would not compel the Government to implement the result. Secondly, governments and parliaments may not bind their successors. Cameron has a lot to answer for.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I find it instructive that those who stood the most to gain from Brexit were so dead-set against a confirmatory vote given that they were so convinced that it truly reflected what the public really wanted.

And equally instructive that those who were most opposed to Brexit from the start are the ones who wanted to have a second referendum [because the first one didn't go their way]

But I think the point is that, a confirmatory vote would have gone completely against what the public had been promised in 2016: A vote where a 50%+1 vote either way determines whether or not we stay in the EU. Now personally I think that was not a sensible basis on which to conduct a referendum about a major constitutional change, and it would have been better if the Government had made arrangements upfront about some kind of confirmatory referendum to hammer out/approve the details in the event of Brexit. But they didn't, they held the referendum on the basis of one-off in-out once-in-a-generation 'final' decision. And it makes a nonsense of democracy to have a referendum and then change the rules *after* the referendum has been held.

Look at it this way. Suppose the referendum had gone the other way, and been 52% for remain, 48% for leave. And suppose that as soon as something unexpected then happened, with the UK still in the EU according to the referendum result, Brexiters started shouting about how Remain never told us that *that* would happen if we stayed in the EU, and therefore we need another referendum to confirm people still want to remain. I'm going to hazard a guess that you, and most people on the remain side, would not be looking too kindly on that kind of argument. (I wouldn't think much of it either).

 

[najaB]

But I think the point is that, a confirmatory vote would have gone completely against what the public had been promised in 2016: A vote where a 50%+1 vote either way determines whether or not we stay in the EU.

Again, I am not arguing that the result of the referendum should have been completely ignored. However, it was clear by 2018/19 that there wasn't a clear consensus of what leaving the EU actually meant (there still isn't in 2022!). It would have been right and proper to go back to the public to ask what they wanted - did they want to leave without a deal, did they want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. And, yes, did they want to actually go ahead with leaving at all.

 

[Enthusiast]

The assertion that you can't be out of the EU without being outside the SM and CU is amply disproved by the existence of non-members who participate in one or the other.

I didn't say that a country can't be out of the EU whilst remaining in the SM/CU. In fact I accepted that there were a few countries that were in exactly that position. My contention is that it would not have been politically wise to negotiate a "Brexit" which entailed the UK remaining in those institutions. The simmering disquiet over the UK's EU membership (which the referendum intended to settle) was in a large part because many people in the country were unhappy with some of the requirements of belonging to the SM/CU. Quite why an "accommodation" for the losing side should have been considered is a little mysterious. Had the result been 52:48 to remain there would have been no such compromise. Mr Cameron tried that before the referendum; he asked for next to nothing and came back with slightly less than that. Had Remain won, Mr C would have appeared on the steps of No.10 the next morning, beaming and proudly announcing that the issue was now settled for a generation and our membership - in full - would have continued uninterrupted and unaltered. Imagine if it was suggested that, because of the closeness of the vote, we'll remain in the EU but as a concession to the Leavers, we'll leave the SM/CU. Quite rightly we'd have been laughed out of Brussels, so why a suggestion the other way round is taken seriously is unclear.

Yes, David Cameron did say in the pro-EU pamphlet that was sent to every home in the UK that it would be "a once in a lifetime decision" and that "the Government will implement what you decide".

But technically he was overstepping his authority by saying that, on two counts. Firstly, in a briefing on the Referendum Bill he had told Parliament that the referendum was to be advisory only and would not compel the Government to implement the result. Secondly, governments and parliaments may not bind their successors. Cameron has a lot to answer for.

But of course he didn't, in his wildest dreams, believe the electorate would vote the wrong way.

And, yes, did they want to actually go ahead with leaving at all.

Why? They'd already said that they did. Do you honestly believe, once again imagining the result had been reversed, that in 2018/19 the electorate would have been asked "Do you want to remain after all?" I would suggest not. All of these suggestions are only voiced because the result went the "wrong" way. Had it gone the right way, no compromise or re-think would have been considered. It's an unfortunate manifestation of the EU's version of democracy - we'll let you vote, but will ask you to vote again if you come up with the wrong answer.

 

[najaB]

Why?

Because people have the right to change their minds.

If they haven't changed their mind, then what is the harm in asking?

 

[DerekC]

Unboxed.

He may well not have personally approved it (hint: he was a massive supporter of the idea), but the principle of collective responsibility applies. If he was as fundamentally opposed government money being spent on things that produce little returns as he claims to be then he should have resigned from the Cabinet.

Moggy was the one who christened Unboxed "The Festival of Brexit" - which (since most people of both persuasions are fed up with talking about it) may be why not many turned up!

 

[jon0844]

There was also discussion of benefits of restricting immigration, in the context of reasons for certain people to vote for Brexit, but I wouldn't consider these to be tangible benefits. People such as HGV drivers suddenly found they had a scarce skill and could demand more money, and the government blew the trumpet on this as a Brexit benefit. But for nearly everyone it's likely to have been overtaken by higher inflation and lower economic activity, and the government has now reverted to telling people they shouldn't be asking for big increases...

It isn't like HGV drivers are all now on fantastic money. What happened was desperate companies paid big bonuses to some drivers to stay (or to poach from another company). Once more drivers have qualified, I assume the pay will be back to where it was - and given time and the erosion of worker rights - will likely come down. Especially if Grant Shapps makes it easier for people to drive a lorry.

 

[E27007]

Yes, David Cameron did say in the pro-EU pamphlet that was sent to every home in the UK that it would be "a once in a lifetime decision" and that "the Government will implement what you decide".
Yes it was a "once in a lifetime" consultation
When i voted for Britain in 1974 to join the EEC, I was voting to enter a Common Market for trade of goods and services, there was nothing about a United States of Europe as envisaged by the likes of Verhofstadt.
In 2016 I voted in the referendum, the first opportunity for a meaningful vote for 40 years, immigration and the demotion by stealth of the British Parliament to a peonage of Brussels were key factors of my vote to leave.

 

[jon0844]

Err, point of order, did we not rely on Johnny Foreigner during WWII. We had them flying Spitfires and Hurricanes, fighting on the front lines. And of course on the ships of the convoys and in the foreign ports where the ships were loaded. Oh, and we were also supplied with tanks and other military equipment…

What a strange memory you have of WW2. I am pretty sure we fought single-handedly and took Berlin from the west and east. Then Russia and the USA muscled in afterwards, which is exactly why we need to be free of their interference today...

 

[REVUpminster]

Yes, David Cameron did say in the pro-EU pamphlet that was sent to every home in the UK that it would be "a once in a lifetime decision" and that "the Government will implement what you decide".
Yes it was a "once in a lifetime" consultation
When i voted for Britain in 1974 to join the EEC, I was voting to enter a Common Market for trade of goods and services, there was nothing about a United States of Europe as envisaged by the likes of Verhofstadt.
In 2016 I voted in the referendum, the first opportunity for a meaningful vote for 40 years, immigration and the demotion by stealth of the British Parliament to a peonage of Brussels were key factors of my vote to leave.

We have never had a vote to join the EEC/EU. Harold Wilson tried to join but de Gaulle vetoed it. After his death Heath took us in. We had votes to remain in 1975 and 2016. Mastricht 1992, when there was only 12 members, is when we should have had a vote but Major didn't want to know. Referendums were held in Ireland, Denmark and France. That's when unrest with the EU began in earnest.

 

[class ep-09]

We have never had a vote to join the EEC/EU. Harold Wilson tried to join but de Gaulle vetoed it. After his death Heath took us in. We had votes to remain in 1975 and 2016. Mastricht 1992, when there was only 12 members, is when we should have had a vote but Major didn't want to know. Referendums were held in Ireland, Denmark and France. That's when unrest with the EU began in earnest.

Ireland, Denmark and France had referendums because their constitutions required them to do do .
UK citizens did not have to have referendums as its constitution (written and codified ) does not exist .
Parliament has the power to vote for or against major changes to the policies / treaties etc. not the public.

 

[nlogax]

We have never had a vote to join the EEC/EU. Harold Wilson tried to join but de Gaulle vetoed it. After his death Heath took us in. We had votes to remain in 1975 and 2016. Mastricht 1992, when there was only 12 members, is when we should have had a vote but Major didn't want to know. Referendums were held in Ireland, Denmark and France. That's when unrest with the EU began in earnest.

William Hague recently stated that he now wishes the UK had a referendum in the late noughties leading up to what became the Lisbon Treaty. His point being that it may have helped diffuse some of the tensions that were simmering at the time in the country leading to a more diluted EU treaty and thus ensuring Brexit wouldn't have happened. Benefit of hindsight and all that, but he had a good point.