Brexit matters

[class ep-09]

I guess because it is the control of numbers and activity and length of stay etc through visas, rather than rights.

If there are shortages of particular skills in the EU, for which there is a surfeit in the UK, then I am sure visas can be issued in quid pro quo.

That would be decided by each EU country independently., not the EU as a whole .
Immigration from third is one of the policies the EU members decide aboit themselves .

 

[nw1]

So how much of a "compromise" do you believe there would have been if the result had been 52:48 to remain? Here's my take: Mr Cameron would have stood on the steps of No 10 the morning after the referendum and declared "Well, that's that. The people have spoken and the government will now implement what you have decided, as we promised. Good Morning." And the UK's membership of the EU would have continued exactly as it had before the referendum.

Maybe Mr Cameron would have done that, however we're not all Mr Cameron. I would have had no objection to a review of certain EU laws had that happened - while still maintaining the essentials of the single market and FoM.

As I said, I believe other countries have more paperwork and checks than we had regarding FoM (e.g. checks for terrorism, serious criminal activity, national security risk, etc). So in the case of a marginal remain result, maybe introducing such checks here could have been an appropriate response.

What Mr Cameron might, or might not have done is not a valid argument for implementing an extreme Brexit on a result which was, to all intents and purposes, a tie.

And me. I really cared and had done so since 1992.

Maybe, but certainly no-one I knew ever complained about the EU in the 90s and 00s. I suspect it was very much a minority position. Many people didn't really care one way or another, though I get the impression that those of us in our 20s and 30s in the 90s and 00s appreciated the additional opportunities it gave. One thing I personally enjoyed in this era was what I perceived as an opening up of the world and breaking down barriers. I also recall a number of countries outside Europe relaxing tourist visa rules in this era too - it was very much an era of openness. In recent years there seems to be an increasing tendency, throughout the western world, of moving back to restrictions again - witness for example the introduction of ESTA for the USA by the Bush administration, which the rest of the Western world now seemingly wants to copy.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

TROLL! TROLL!

Troll? Or honest opinion?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

That would be decided by each EU country independently., not the EU as a whole .
Immigration from third is one of the policies the EU members decide aboit themselves .

Doesn't Schengen mean that they all have to adopt a common immigration policy, due to open borders? Of course non-Schengen countries can adopt their own policy.

(But then again maybe not, considering Ireland. Theoretically, with the open border between Ireland and NI, there is nothing physically stopping EU citizens entering NI, and thence the rest of the UK).

 

[Bald Rick]

Well your good reason is presumably different to other people's good reason?

yes, it’s called opinion.

However, when you get to the nuts and bolts of it, I’ve found that almost everyone with the contra opinion has been misinformed, or is illogical, or nefarious.

I can only speak as I find.

 

[RT4038]

yes, it’s called opinion.

Of course, and long may you be allowed to express it! And others to disagree. But I'm not going to go back over the same ground again as the 218 pages of this thread!!!!!

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe, but certainly no-one I knew ever complained about the EU in the 90s and 00s. I suspect it was very much a minority position. Many people didn't really care one way or another, though I get the impression that those of us in our 20s and 30s in the 90s and 00s appreciated the additional opportunities it gave. One thing I personally enjoyed in this era was what I perceived as an opening up of the world and breaking down barriers. I also recall a number of countries outside Europe relaxing tourist visa rules in this era too - it was very much an era of openness. In recent years there seems to be an increasing tendency, throughout the western world, of moving back to restrictions again - witness for example the introduction of ESTA for the USA by the Bush administration, which the rest of the Western world now seemingly wants to copy.

It's also worth remembering that EU membership was a powerful incentive for countries in eastern Europe to settle their differences (including several that turned extremely violent) after the fall of the USSR, and follow the path of western-style democracy. This is obviously imperfect - Hungary and Poland have been backsliding for example, but the EU does have a range of sanctions to uphold fundamental democratic principles in member states.

 

[tomuk]

Maybe Mr Cameron would have done that, however we're not all Mr Cameron. I would have had no objection to a review of certain EU laws had that happened - while still maintaining the essentials of the single market and FoM.

But we were in no place to carry out such a review. Before the referendum Cameron toured the EU trying to extract some concessions on the issues people were concerned with and basically returned with nothing apart from an embarrassed look on his face.

Maybe, but certainly no-one I knew ever complained about the EU in the 90s and 00s. I suspect it was very much a minority position.

S you were oblivious to the hoo-ha over Maastricht, Black Wednesday, Jimmy Goldsmith and the referendum party in the 1997 general election, the debate in leading parties about what circumstances a referendum should be given, the tension in Labour over the Euro, The EU constitution referendums leading to the Lisbon treaty, the embarrassing non-attendance\attendance of Gordon Brown to sign the Lisbon Treaty. The rise of UKIP.

 

[nw1]

S you were oblivious to the hoo-ha over Maastricht, Black Wednesday, Jimmy Goldsmith and the referendum party in the 1997 general election, the debate in leading parties about what circumstances a referendum should be given, the tension in Labour over the Euro, The EU constitution referendums leading to the Lisbon treaty, the embarrassing non-attendance\attendance of Gordon Brown to sign the Lisbon Treaty. The rise of UKIP.

To me it all seemed to be very much things brought up by fringe figures in the Tory Party, and certainly not supported by the Tory mainstream, for instance. As for Goldsmith, was he ever really seen as a mainstream figure?

I'm just basing things from my own experience. No-one I know ever complained about the EU in the 90s or most of the 00s, it all seemed to creep in later. Of all the political issues from the early 90s to the late 00s, the EU seemed to be well, well down the list. At various times, the 1990s recession, the Back to Basics shannanigans (trivial but prominent), real improvements implemented by Labour (minimum wage, maximum working hours, right to roam), possible cronyism by both the Tories and Labour, the dotcom crash, the Countryside Alliance issues (which I had mixed feelings about, I'm not pro-foxhunting though I have sympathy for those who argue against the closure of rural services), the (welcome) increase in minority rights, and of course 9/11 and its aftermath, the Iraq war and the credit crunch were what I considered the definining issues of the time.

But I will admit that I perhaps mentally filtered the EU stuff out because, compared to the other issues of the time, I didn't perceive it as important, it just seemed to be something the Tory right were obsessed about, rather irrationally in my view. However no-one else I knew particularly discussed it either. We were in the EEC from my very earliest memory and I probably failed to see what the fuss was all about.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Theoretically, with the open border between Ireland and NI, there is nothing physically stopping EU citizens entering NI, and thence the rest of the UK.

That's why Ireland is not in Schengen, so they do the same passport/id checks we used to do before Brexit, for EU arrivals.
To some extent, UK + IE is its own free movement area (the Common Travel Area).

It would become interesting if Scotland became independent and joined the EU, as new entrants are obliged to join Schengen (and the Euro).

 

[nw1]

That's why Ireland is not in Schengen, so they do the same passport/id checks we used to do before Brexit, for EU arrivals.
To some extent, UK + IE is its own free movement area (the Common Travel Area).

It would become interesting if Scotland became independent and joined the EU, as new entrants are obliged to join Schengen (and the Euro).

WIthdrawal of freedom of movement between the rest of the UK and Scotland would absolutely never be tolerated. So I guess the only way that Scotland would rejoin the EU is if they could negotiate an exception.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm just basing things from my own experience. No-one I know ever complained about the EU in the 90s or most of the 00s, it all seemed to creep in later. Of all the political issues from the early 90s to the late 00s, the EU seemed to be well, well down the list.

I think you're correct that the EU was a much lower priority in most people's minds during the 90s and 00s. I would imagine that's largely because it was the high level of FOM-based migration levels that really caused the EU to become an important issue for many people - and those high migration levels didn't start to happen until the mid-2000s, then it took a couple more years for what was happening to seep into public consciousness.

I would also imagine the fact that we stayed out of the single currency helped to keep the EU as low priority for many people for longer. I'm fairly confident that if we had joined the Euro around 2000-ish when some people in the Labour Government wanted to, that would have turned EU membership into a major issue a few years sooner.

 

[tomuk]

To me it all seemed to be very much things brought up by fringe figures in the Tory Party, and certainly not supported by the Tory mainstream, for instance. As for Goldsmith, was he ever really seen as a mainstream figure?

His referendum party starting from nowhere came fourth in the 1997 general election with 3% of the vote. The mainstream parties although not calling for an in\out referendum all took positions on the need for referendum on further EU changes\treaties. By 2007 the Lib Dems were calling for an in out referendum too.

I'm just basing things from my own experience. No-one I know ever complained about the EU in the 90s or most of the 00s, it all seemed to creep in later. Of all the political issues from the early 90s to the late 00s, the EU seemed to be well, well down the list. At various times, the 1990s recession,

Was not the euro or at least the ERM not part of this ?

the Back to Basics shannanigans (trivial but prominent), real improvements implemented by Labour (minimum wage, maximum working hours, right to roam),

The working time directive was another controversial EU directive of which we were the only ones to vote against in the EU council.

possible cronyism by both the Tories and Labour, the dotcom crash, the Countryside Alliance issues (which I had mixed feelings about, I'm not pro-foxhunting though I have sympathy for those who argue against the closure of rural services),
the (welcome) increase in minority rights, and of course 9/11 and its aftermath, the Iraq war and the credit crunch were what I considered the definining issues of the time.

Some of those I would agree were defining issues, although no so sure about fox-hunting always seemed a shibboleth issue irrelevant to 99.9%.

But I will admit that I perhaps mentally filtered the EU stuff out because, compared to the other issues of the time, I didn't perceive it as important, it just seemed to be something the Tory right were obsessed about, rather irrationally in my view. However no-one else I knew particularly discussed it either. We were in the EEC from my very earliest memory and I probably failed to see what the fuss was all about.

Maybe your lack of recognition of issues and a similar view by others may have led to the suprise you got after the referendum. it was clear for at least 20 years prior to the referendum that there was a growing unease with things. Now luckily or unluckily depending on which side you on the arguably minority interest in EU shenanigans did coalesce with a wider disconnect within UK society with the powers that be.

Another thing to note is that this commentary comes from someone who is very much not a political 'geek' and voted to remain.

 

[Enthusiast]

What Mr Cameron might, or might not have done is not a valid argument for implementing an extreme Brexit on a result which was, to all intents and purposes, a tie.

I beg your pardon but Mr Cameron was the Prime Minister who called the referendum, and who stated that the government would implement the electorate's decision. I think it is common ground that he would have remained in office (rather than throwing his toys from the pram) had remain prevailed, so what he may or may not have done in the event of a marginal vote to remain is very much a valid argument. The result was not a tie; "Leave" won and the outcome was not an "extreme" Brexit but simply Brexit. And that's my argument: why should "compromise" (i.e. anything other than the proper interpretation of the UK leaving the EU) be considered in the result of a marginal leave vote, when there is absolutely no doubt that no such compromise would have been considered in the event of a marginal vote to remain?

It would help me understand your argument if you could comment on my hypothesis of events in the case of a marginal vote to remain. What would have been the reaction if it was suggested that the UK remain in the EU, but left the SM, and/or the CU and/or abandoned FoM? Because the opposite of that is exactly what has been continually suggested should have been considered as a compromise to appease disappointed Remainers.

 

[GusB]

I beg your pardon but Mr Cameron was the Prime Minister who called the referendum, and who stated that the government would implement the electorate's decision. I think it is common ground that he would have remained in office (rather than throwing his toys from the pram) had remain prevailed, so what he may or may not have done in the event of a marginal vote to remain is very much a valid argument. The result was not a tie; "Leave" won and the outcome was not an "extreme" Brexit but simply Brexit. And that's my argument: why should "compromise" (i.e. anything other than the proper interpretation of the UK leaving the EU) be considered in the result of a marginal leave vote, when there is absolutely no doubt that no such compromise would have been considered in the event of a marginal vote to remain?

It would help me understand your argument if you could comment on my hypothesis of events in the case of a marginal vote to remain. What would have been the reaction if it was suggested that the UK remain in the EU, but left the SM, and/or the CU and/or abandoned FoM? Because the opposite of that is exactly what has been continually suggested should have been considered as a compromise to appease disappointed Remainers.

It wasn't a tie, but it was as good as. The result ignored the views of those who would have been happy to compromise (I'd have accepted us leaving the EU if we could have remained in the single market and customs union). It didn't have to end up the way it did. Simply by being out of the EU, Brexit was delivered.

The result of any election or referendum is always going to end up in disappointment for those who didn't win, but that doesn't mean that their views should be completely trampled on.

We did end up with an extreme Brexit, and it needn't have been so. There was no need to burn the bridges.

 

[E27007]

Maybe, but certainly no-one I knew ever complained about the EU in the 90s and 00s. I suspect it was very much a minority position. Many people didn't really care one way or another, though I get the impression that those of us in our 20s and 30s in the 90s and 00s appreciated the additional opportunities it gave.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2023 ==

Immigration to the UK from the EEC in the 1980s / 90s was not an issue, the public immigration concern of the era was from the commonwealth to the UK. UK had issues with Brussels over agricultural policy, a big portion of CAP budget went to subsidise low-productivity French farming, we received our CAP rebate and CAP was reformed. Immigration / emigration under FoM was modest, most member states were reasonably equal, post 2005, high levels of immigration to the UK and others arose from the major disparities between income levels of the eastern european member states upon their accession to the EU.

 

[AlterEgo]

Regarding Ireland being mainly English speaking, it is because we invaded, took over, and colonised in the name of imperialism and empire building.

After when Franz Ferdinand got assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914, this was the catalyst for World War 1, of which Ireland did not want to be part of events to maintain the Austro-Hungarian empire (which collapsed in 1918).

Back in 2014, perhaps this is what the then PM Cameron wanted to "celebrate" with various events i.e. the start of the end of imperialism and empire? Or was it to celebrate the biggest lie the UK Government had said back then "The war to end all wars"?

What does any of this stream of consciousness have to do with Brexit?

 

[nw1]

I beg your pardon but Mr Cameron was the Prime Minister who called the referendum, and who stated that the government would implement the electorate's decision. I think it is common ground that he would have remained in office (rather than throwing his toys from the pram) had remain prevailed, so what he may or may not have done in the event of a marginal vote to remain is very much a valid argument. The result was not a tie;

If you round things, it was basically a tie. About the same number of people voted Leave as Remain. If 13 people want thing and 12 people want another, I think it's common sense that opinion is pretty much divided down the middle. I have no time for "winner takes all" politics and in these kind of split votes, a compromise needs to

"Leave" won and the outcome was not an "extreme" Brexit but simply Brexit.

It was extreme in the sense that things were done which the Government had absolutely no duty to implement given the wording of the referendum: removal of FoM and the single market. Remainers have had absolutely nothing done for them. We have been utterly, 100%, ignored.

And that's my argument: why should "compromise" (i.e. anything other than the proper interpretation of the UK leaving the EU) be considered in the result of a marginal leave vote, when there is absolutely no doubt that no such compromise would have been considered in the event of a marginal vote to remain?

It would help me understand your argument if you could comment on my hypothesis of events in the case of a marginal vote to remain. What would have been the reaction if it was suggested that the UK remain in the EU, but left the SM, and/or the CU and/or abandoned FoM? Because the opposite of that is exactly what has been continually suggested should have been considered as a compromise to appease disappointed Remainers.

The above could not have happened because the EU would not allow continuing membership on those conditions.

We could have (as I said) look at what other countries do regarding EU immigration and followed them. I am fairly sure, as I said, that some countries implement checks on would-be EU migrants (criminal record, security concerns etc).

Plus also, where radical change is proposed, the status quo (whatever it is) should, in my view, have a fundamental advantage because radical change brings significant risk.

And I will say once again, there was absolutely no need to withdraw FoM or withdraw from the CU/SM. The referendum did not ask this. That was done by the Conservative Party, in my view, because they were running scared of Farage. In their view, they believed that the more militant Brexiters would not accept anything other than an extreme version of Brexit. They were frightened their voters would desert to UKIP.

The whole thing was just cooked up in the self-interest of one organisation. The Conservative Party.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2023 ==

It wasn't a tie, but it was as good as. The result ignored the views of those who would have been happy to compromise (I'd have accepted us leaving the EU if we could have remained in the single market and customs union). It didn't have to end up the way it did. Simply by being out of the EU, Brexit was delivered.

The result of any election or referendum is always going to end up in disappointment for those who didn't win, but that doesn't mean that their views should be completely trampled on.

We did end up with an extreme Brexit, and it needn't have been so. There was no need to burn the bridges.

I absolutely, 100% agree with everything you've said in this post. An excellent summary of the situation.

 

[tomuk]

We could have (as I said) look at what other countries do regarding EU immigration and followed them. I am fairly sure, as I said, that some countries implement checks on would-be EU migrants (criminal record, security concerns etc).

We did do checks on criminal records and security concerns and did bar entry\deport EU nationals on that basis. The issue was like all other EU states there was no ability to control the overall number.

And I will say once again, there was absolutely no need to withdraw FoM or withdraw from the CU/SM. The referendum did not ask this.

A large proportion of those who voted leave did so because by leaving we could take back control of immigration by ending FOM. If you leave the EU you can't be in the CU or SM unless you sign up to an EFTA style agreement which includes FOM thereby nullifying the whole point of leaving for a lot of people.

 

[edwin_m]

We did do checks on criminal records and security concerns and did bar entry\deport EU nationals on that basis. The issue was like all other EU states there was no ability to control the overall number.

A large proportion of those who voted leave did so because by leaving we could take back control of immigration by ending FOM. If you leave the EU you can't be in the CU or SM unless you sign up to an EFTA style agreement which includes FOM thereby nullifying the whole point of leaving for a lot of people.

But a large proportion of those who voted leave may also have believed the statements made by that campaign about remaining in the CU and/or SM, not to mention the lies that were told to dupe the public into thinking the EU was the cause of many of our problems. But neither you nor I should make those statements definitively, because the question wasn't on the ballot.

 

[nw1]

We did do checks on criminal records and security concerns and did bar entry\deport EU nationals on that basis. The issue was like all other EU states there was no ability to control the overall number.

A large proportion of those who voted leave did so because by leaving we could take back control of immigration by ending FOM. If you leave the EU you can't be in the CU or SM unless you sign up to an EFTA style agreement which includes FOM thereby nullifying the whole point of leaving for a lot of people.

But that brings up the question of "why did Brexit happen?"

If the answer is simply "we had to carry out the referendum result" (and morally, that was the only reason to carry it out at all IMV), there was no reason to do anything other than the softest possible Brexit.

Maybe some people wanted to "take back control of immigration". We all want things to change in some way or another, but most of the rest of us don't get our wishes. Some of us want more money spent on public services. Some of us want everyone to have the right to an NHS dentist. Some of us want a Scotland-style freedom-to-roam law extended to the rest of the UK. Some of us want life wound back to 2019 (in a pre-Covid sense, rather than a pre-Brexit sense). Some of us (not myself, especially, I'm neutral on the matter) want legalisation of cannabis. Some of us doubtless want train fares to be slashed dramatically.

What's so special about those who want a harder immigration policy, compared to those who have other desires to change things? The answer (IMV) is that the Tories knew that, by granting them their wish, they could hold off the electoral threat of UKIP. The Tories were as a result generally seen as a populist-right, hardline-on-immigration party in addition to being a fiscally-conservative party. In doing so, they captured more of the electorate than they would have done otherwise, and thus, for a time at least, achieved more electoral success than they would have done otherwise.

Also I suspect a large proportion of those who voted leave actually didn't care, but simply wanted to spite Cameron. In the absence of any specific questions on the referendum asking people to justify the vote, the reasons for voting leave are just conjecture.

Of course more recently the Tories seem to have become so obsessed with right-wing populism that it's starting to work against them, and former Tory voters in the south are starting to turn away.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But that brings up the question of "why did Brexit happen?"

If the answer is simply "we had to carry out the referendum result" (and morally, that was the only reason to carry it out at all IMV), there was no reason to do anything other than the softest possible Brexit.

Surely that depends on your point of view. Yes, if, like yourself, you are someone who is strongly opposed to Brexit, then you probably won't see any reason for Brexit other than honouring the referendum result (and to be fair, some Remainers did adopt the attitude that, since people had voted for Brexit, Brexit needed to happen). On the other hand, if you are someone who wanted Brexit in the first place, you would presumably be able to think of a number of reasons why you believe Brexit is a good thing.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because you personally don't see any reasons to do X, no reasons exist in the minds of other people.

Maybe some people wanted to "take back control of immigration". We all want things to change in some way or another, but most of the rest of us don't get our wishes. Some of us want more money spent on public services. Some of us want everyone to have the right to an NHS dentist. Some of us want a Scotland-style freedom-to-roam law extended to the rest of the UK. Some of us want life wound back to 2019 (in a pre-Covid sense, rather than a pre-Brexit sense). Some of us (not myself, especially, I'm neutral on the matter) want legalisation of cannabis. Some of us doubtless want train fares to be slashed dramatically.

Forgive me, but this reads like you are trying to imply that, just because you don't get some of the things you want, people who want tighter immigration controls shouldn't be able to get what they want. I trust that's not what you're saying?

 

[nw1]

Forgive me, but this reads like you are trying to imply that, just because you don't get some of the things you want, people who want tighter immigration controls shouldn't be able to get what they want. I trust that's not what you're saying?

I'm saying "why should they/did they get special treatment?" when there are so many other desires people have that the government do not wish to grant, though perhaps for good reasons in some cases. (I did, however, provide what, IMO, is the answer to that rhetorical question).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2023 ==

Surely that depends on your point of view. Yes, if, like yourself, you are someone who is strongly opposed to Brexit, then you probably won't see any reason for Brexit other than honouring the referendum result (and to be fair, some Remainers did adopt the attitude that, since people had voted for Brexit, Brexit needed to happen). On the other hand, if you are someone who wanted Brexit in the first place, you would presumably be able to think of a number of reasons why you believe Brexit is a good thing.

There seemed to be little analysis from the Government as to whether, on balance, removing the single market/customs union/FoM was likely to make things better or worse.

It just seemed to be assumed it had to be done. If there was more in the way of balanced argument as to what sort of outcome we should have, and a clear conclusion that a hard Brexit would be better for the country and its residents, in a material way, than a soft Brexit, I'd have less to complain about.

Instead there just seemed to be an implicit assumption from the Government that Brexit had to be hard, and FoM had to be stopped. No discussion, no argument, just "that's the way it is". That is what many of us just could not accept. And as stated, I have already given my theory as to why the Government adopted this policy.

Furthermore the policy seemed to switch as soon as the referendum happened. Certainly my thoughts before the event were that, if Brexit happened, it would be a soft one, anything else would be utterly foolish, and this must have been based on the Leave campaign's marketing. There seemed to be no talk of Hard Brexit at all, just a Norway-style agreement and "carrying on almost the way we were", but out of the EU.

 

[JamesT]

Furthermore the policy seemed to switch as soon as the referendum happened. Certainly my thoughts before the event were that, if Brexit happened, it would be a soft one, anything else would be utterly foolish, and this must have been based on the Leave campaign's marketing. There seemed to be no talk of Hard Brexit at all, just a Norway-style agreement and "carrying on almost the way we were", but out of the EU.

Wasn't this at least partly down to the EU's refusal to discuss hypothetical Brexit? Negotiations couldn't begin until Article 50 happened.

 

[edwin_m]

Wasn't this at least partly down to the EU's refusal to discuss hypothetical Brexit? Negotiations couldn't begin until Article 50 happened.

I can't see any direct link here. Once negotiations started, the EU were pretty clear about what options were on the table and what responsibilities went along with each one.

There may have been an indirect effect, that the delay in getting into serious negotiations allowed pressure to build up from the Brexit side for a harder option.

 

[Enthusiast]

It wasn't a tie, but it was as good as. The result ignored the views of those who would have been happy to compromise (I'd have accepted us leaving the EU if we could have remained in the single market and customs union). It didn't have to end up the way it did. Simply by being out of the EU, Brexit was delivered.

The result of any election or referendum is always going to end up in disappointment for those who didn't win, but that doesn't mean that their views should be completely trampled on.

We did end up with an extreme Brexit, and it needn't have been so. There was no need to burn the bridges.

Then the question still remains (and remains unanswered): what compromises do you suggest would have been made if the result had been 52:48 to remain? My suggestion is none whatsoever. You say you'd have been happy to leave the EU but remain in the SM and CU. I've explained why that would be unacceptable to most Leavers. To help you understand this, leaving aside that the EU would not permit it, how would you feel if, in the result of a marginal vote to Remain, we stayed in the EU but left the SM and CU to satisfy disappointed Leavers? Because that's exactly what you are suggesting victorious Leavers should accept to appease disappointed Remainers. It's quite clear, from your suggestion, that, in your mind, the SM and CU are critical features of EU membership which simply cannot be detached from it (and I would quite agree). So why should your version of "Leaving" involve remaining in those institutions?

So again, what compromises would you envisage for disappointed Leavers had the result been 52:48 to remain? If you believe, as I do, that none would have been made, why should such an accommodation be made for disappointed remainers?

 

[JamesT]

I can't see any direct link here. Once negotiations started, the EU were pretty clear about what options were on the table and what responsibilities went along with each one.

There may have been an indirect effect, that the delay in getting into serious negotiations allowed pressure to build up from the Brexit side for a harder option.

I was coming at it more from the observation that the policy appeared to change. Before A50 there were suggestions around very soft Brexit that verged on cakeism. But as you say, once the negotiations began it became clear how indivisible things are and that any sort of meaningful Leave would have to be Hard.

 

[AM9]

I was coming at it more from the observation that the policy appeared to change. Before A50 there were suggestions around very soft Brexit that verged on cakeism. But as you say, once the negotiations began it became clear how indivisible things are and that any sort of meaningful Leave would have to be Hard.

They were only indivisible to hard-liners, including, most importantly, the lobbyists of 55 Tufton St..

 

[edwin_m]

I was coming at it more from the observation that the policy appeared to change. Before A50 there were suggestions around very soft Brexit that verged on cakeism. But as you say, once the negotiations began it became clear how indivisible things are and that any sort of meaningful Leave would have to be Hard.

I didn't actually say that. The options the EU offered included a Norway-style deal for example. But they didn't include options that allowed the UK to cherry-pick the benefits without the associated responsibilities.

 

[najaB]

In a huge disappointment to almost nobody, the death of the CE mark for good sold in GB has been indefinitely postponed.

The UK government has decided to recognise the EU's product safety symbol indefinitely, in a post-Brexit climbdown.

From the end of next year, goods such as light bulbs and toys were meant to carry a new UK-only mark to be sold in Great Britain.

However, the business department has now confirmed the EU symbol will continue to be accepted on most goods.

UK to keep EU safety mark in post-Brexit climbdown

It means goods sold in Great Britain will not have to apply the new UK-only product safety mark.

www.bbc.co.uk

Is this part of a more pragmatic and less dogmatic approach to UK-EU relations?

 

[AM9]

In a huge disappointment to almost nobody, the death of the CE mark for good sold in GB has been indefinitely postponed.

UK to keep EU safety mark in post-Brexit climbdown

It means goods sold in Great Britain will not have to apply the new UK-only product safety mark.

www.bbc.co.uk

Is this part of a more pragmatic and less dogmatic approach to UK-EU relations?

Shapps extended the introduction by two years, ostensibly because business couldn't be ready in time. That was the beginning of the end of this brexiteers' demonstrating our 'new found Great British freedoms'.
I wonder how big the banner headlines in the Mail will be, 8 point? Best good news this week.

 

[jon0844]

UKCA was a totally pointless thing, putting more pressure on UK businesses and for no real gain. Foreign businesses weren't likely to produce things differently had our certification differed from CE (like the people who insisted Apple would keep the Lightning connector on the iPhone in the UK when they switch to USB-C) so had we gone ahead with it, it would have almost certainly mirrored CE forever anyway - but just added more cost.

And some businesses wouldn't bother and would choose not to sell their products/parts here at all.