• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Opinions on Brexit

Regarding Brexit..:

  • I voted Leave and stand by that decision

    Votes: 31 14.0%
  • I voted Remain and stand by that decision

    Votes: 161 72.5%
  • I voted Leave but have changed my mind

    Votes: 7 3.2%
  • I voted Remain but have changed my mind

    Votes: 8 3.6%
  • I hold no strong opinion either way.

    Votes: 4 1.8%
  • I believe Brexit could have been beneficial but has been mishandled.

    Votes: 42 18.9%

  • Total voters
    222
Status
Not open for further replies.

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,435
Even the Telegraph is now calling time on Brexit
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/13/brexit-finally-dead-tory-party-will-soon-suffer-fate
The cliché goes that “time is running out” to make something of Brexit. But on Thursday Feb 9, the last speck of sand in the hourglass finally fell. It really is all over. And how fitting that Brexit was finally condemned to death in the gilded splendour of Ditchley Park – a discreet yet decadent retreat for this country’s most powerful since the reign of Elizabeth I.

Of course, the status-quo order is trying to be subtle, even polite, about its magnificent triumph over Leaver populism. Last week’s gathering – which saw executives of major banks commune with senior political figures on both sides of the Brexit debate, including Michael Gove and David Lammy – wasn’t particularly secret, despite some attempts to hype it up as so. It also took place under a fairly bland working title: “How can we make Brexit work better with our neighbours in Europe?”

But let’s not be naive. The exchange dwelled heavily on the fact that “Brexit is not delivering”, and there was broad support for a closer relationship with the EU. In other words, both sides agreed that the dream of meaningful divergence had fallen into a deep coma. A proverbial contract to switch off the project’s life-support machine was subsequently signed. Not that Brexit’s demise was all part of some elaborate plot; the project has been mortally wounded for some time, and there simply wasn’t the political will to save it.

We could dwell at length on who exactly killed Brexit. But in truth, as on Agatha Christie’s Orient Express, everybody wielded the knife. It was Theresa May who squandered her parliamentary majority and thus gravely weakened Britain’s negotiating position against Brussels. It was the political class who could never see the project as more than a damage limitation exercise. And it was the Brexiteers who failed to muster a compellingly modern vision – preferring to glory in buccaneering fantasies of free trade than focus on regulatory divergence to jump-start science and tech.

Regardless, the fact remains that Brexit is dead. The only thing left to do is the political equivalent of disposing of the body. This may start with furtive steps nobody can contest: reviving the Erasmus exchange program and co-operating with Brussels in new areas like energy. Meanwhile, Parliament will likely drop works in progress, such as the Bill to take thousands of Brussels laws off the statute books by 2023.

Then, under pressure from big business, the Government might well seek to relieve labour market shortages by, for example, expanding the agricultural workers scheme. It may even introduce primary legislation to automatically update UK standards in line with EU changes.

Put bluntly, even before there is another referendum, we will most probably reach a point which feels a lot like being back in the Single Market. And ultimately, as support for Brexit plummets, we can expect a fresh vote within five to seven years.

But here’s the hitch. There is no way that the ruling class can get away with terminating Brexit without seismic consequences. For one thing, it is highly unlikely that the Tories would be able to survive.

In order for the country to heal, the Conservative Party would have to be permanently destroyed through the ballot box. Fair or not, this is merely the way of history and the logic of populism. In a cleansing, cathartic act, the masses must find a way to acknowledge the revolution’s betrayals and perversions, while keeping the purity of the people’s will intact.

The second explosive effect of Brexit’s death is that it has put the ruling class back on a collision course with the masses. People voted to Leave for two reasons. The first was to exercise control over who comes into the country. The second was out of frustration that the economic status quo is failing, to the point where millions were willing to take a massive gamble on Schumpeterian disruption.

Therein lies the nub of the problem with returning to business as usual. Such a bid would run roughshod over popular appetite for greater sovereignty and radical change. And it wouldn’t even solve the country’s economic problems. Remainers may think that reversing Brexit will stir the economy out of the doldrums. It won’t. Even before we left the EU, signs of the economic crisis were all around, from stagnant wages and corporate addiction to cheap labour and the worst productivity slump since the 19th century.

The reality, so often missed, is that our current economic woes are not rooted in issues of trade or “business uncertainty”, but rather a profound global slowdown in technological innovation.

In response to this charge, the Whitehall orthodoxy can only babble about a “productivity puzzle” and “poor British management practices” as it clings to a defunct neoclassical economic approach that puts price competition, rather than innovation competition, at its heart. That is how deep the Brexit ditch has become – not only do our elites have no compelling plan for fixing things, they don’t even intellectually understand the core issues.

The question now is what those who believe in growth should do. Brexiteers might be tempted to wallow in conspiratorial rage at the “deep state” who were “never going to let us leave”. But there is no time to mourn. The predicament of this country is too grave. Trussites have decided to focus on pressuring Sunak on tax cuts. But more urgent is a realistic growth plan that can be effective even in spite of high taxes and irksome EU regulation. This will be difficult, yet not impossible. After all, although serious taxes were levied during the Industrial Revolution, this actually incentivised entrepreneurs to cut costs by innovating with new steam-powered machinery.

A good start would be a growth coalition across all (surviving) major parties that can lobby to overhaul net zero and the planning system, and ensure that a DARPA-style innovation agency in the pipeline gets the cash and autonomy it needs to thrive. If this doesn’t happen, one dreads to think what comes next. We will no doubt sink deeper into decline. And we may also face a second populist wave far more extreme than the first.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,211
Location
SE London
The Telegraph often posts opinion pieces presenting different opinions, even opinions opposed to each other. For example just a few days ago they had an article calling for us to leave the European Court of Human Rights followed by an article calling for us to stay in it. So I really wouldn't read much into this. Especially since last time I checked Brexit had definitely happened. ;)
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,872
Location
UK
I think more and more people are hedging their bets now, as there are so many rumours of infighting and the Government realising it needs to do something.

While it would seem obvious the Tories will lose the next election, they do seem to be planning to go all in - and improvements to the economy are going to be essential to facilitate this. They can't simply bribe the electorate as there clearly isn't the money to do so without some light at the end of the tunnel.

I also think that as more and more polls show Brexit is considered a failure, the Tories simply can't risk getting into a situation where public opinion turns and keeping on with the 'give it more time' and 'Brexit hasn't really happened yet' will anger the electorate, not rally them.

Ultimately, a lot of people who voted Brexit shot themselves in the foot and are now realising this. It has become clear who profited and who lost, and those who made money are always going to vote Tory so aren't the ones the party needs to worry about.
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
1,181
Location
Edinburgh/ Chester le Street
Remainers may think that reversing Brexit will stir the economy out of the doldrums. It won’t. Even before we left the EU, signs of the economic crisis were all around, from stagnant wages and corporate addiction to cheap labour and the worst productivity slump since the 19th century.

Which came about because of the Tory government we have had since 2010, when productivity and the economy was on an upward trend.
Perhaps if we hadn't have had that government, we wouldn't have had the vexxed issue of a referendum to sort out the division in said government (well, party specifically) and we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place
 

Beemax

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2018
Messages
162
I can imagine the following conversation at the next (2024?) election campaign.



Tory Candidate – Can we rely on your vote? We got Brexit done!

Voter – Really? When do I start to see the benefits?

Tory Candidate - Well they will take time obviously.

Voter – Well I have already noticed that it is more difficult to post a parcel overseas.

Tory Candidate - Maybe, but…

Voter – And it takes much longer to get through passport checks.

Tory Candidate - But it’s a nicer colour passport.

Voter -And it’s more difficult to recruit staff at my Mother’s care home

Tory Candidate - Yes, but a least you got your vaccination quicker.

Voter – But we could have done that under existing EU rules- surely you know that.

Tory Candidate - Yes, but we have reduced legal EU immigration

Voter – but not illegal non-EU immigration. That has increased

Tory Candidate - Yes but, look at all the savings we have made by not contributing to the EU budget

Voter - Already outweighed by the costs of Brexit

Tory Candidate - And the removal of all those EU Regulations

Voter – Most of which it seems we’ll need to keep, with additional red tape for exporters.

Tory Candidate - yes but you’re ignoring the main reason for Brexit- Sovereignty!!!

Voter- But what does that mean?

Tory Candidate - Well it means that if you don’t like what I’m doing, you can vote me out!

Voter -Well, I could have done that anyway. But thanks, I will take you up on your offer!
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,774
Here's something I hadn't considered, I'm currently in Jersey and was chatting to the locals who are extremely worried that the French, obviously on their doorstep, who go to Jersey in large numbers for day trips and longer stays, will simply stop coming when they require full passports (is not just id cards), and an electronic visa waiver etc.
I was on a bus yesterday with plenty of French on, judging by the chatter!
Therefore Jersey's tourist industry might suffer collateral damage from Brexit like everyone else.
Thing is, unlike Gibraltar, Jersey never got a vote. They weren't in the EU of course, but should have had a say as the UK leaving will clearly have an effect.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,798
Location
West is best
Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom. It has its own parliament and is a separate international identity.

Having said that, I know nothing about who is responsible for Jersey‘s border control.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,774
Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom. It has its own parliament and is a separate international identity.

Having said that, I know nothing about who is responsible for Jersey‘s border control.
Same applies to Gibraltar yet they did get a vote.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,455
Thing is, unlike Gibraltar, Jersey never got a vote. They weren't in the EU of course, but should have had a say as the UK leaving will clearly have an effect.
Jersey has benefitted massively over the years by not being an integral part of the UK, so it can't really complain of discovering a downside in not having a vote on Brexit.
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,275
If you choose to make your life in another country for a lengthy period of time and don't return to your homeland to live during that period, surely you don't really have any right to have a say in what happens in the place that you no longer choose to live.
Considering the result of that vote directly affected them (as in many were forced to return to the UK) absolutely they should’ve had a say.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,455
Considering the result of that vote directly affected them (as in many were forced to return to the UK) absolutely they should’ve had a say.
But they did (see posts #39 & 50). Anyone living out of the country for more than 15 years (save on Armed Forces or Diplomatic duty or the like) has had plenty of time to take out the citizenship of the country they have chosen to make their home, and participate in the democratic process of that country.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,774
Jersey has benefitted massively over the years by not being an integral part of the UK, so it can't really complain of discovering a downside in not having a vote on Brexit.
So has Gibraltar, ask the ex-chancellor!
 

Luke McDonnell

On Moderation
Joined
20 Mar 2019
Messages
144
Just asking if you think the Northern Ireland Protocol issue should be resolved shortly as NI needs stability I believe that the fact that NI has been without a government so long is acceppatole but I can see in a way why the DUP are doing it they are using it as leverage to extract concessions as they can say effectively if there demands are not met they will not be able to go back into the Stormont Assembly and as that it a fundamental part of the GFA effectively it will mean the end of the GFA.

In a negotiation you need to compromise and that is something that the DUP find difficult especially with the presence of a more hardline unionist party (TUV) in Stormont but in some ways I can see why the DUP don't like the current situation to them an analogy would be say if Texas although remaining in the USA, in order to maintain free trade and an open border with Mexico has to have border controls with the rest of the USA and even more than that has to implement Mexican laws for trade purposes and be subject to the Mexican supreme court as well as the US Supreme Court could not see the people of Texas accepting that so I can see why the TUV and DUP are frustrated but I don't think they should not refuse to go into government as suggested why doesn't the British Government say to the DUP if you don't accept this deal we will legislate to change NI constitutional arrangements to enable a government to be formed without the DUP with either the UUP and/or the Alliance party holding the deputy first minister post instead?
 

kallyvintage

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2022
Messages
65
Location
NW
Just stumbled across this topic.

Without giving too much away I come from a manufacturing area that has relied on EU funding to (one could argue) bridge the investment gaps that the place needs but never usally gets from a certain brand of central govt due to politics..

I could go into the whole macro soci-economic thing but its been clear since Brexit our already stretched local economy has taken a battering.
Speaking to some lads in the biggest car factory which employs a lot of locals theyve gone from nearly 1000 cars a day before Brexit to about half that after the dust settled, now of course there are big issues around parts etc

Why would anyone vote Brexit and make life so much harder when it comes to your biggest trading partner, shooting yourself in both feet so to speak and not just one foot?? It seems to me and other casual observers of my acquaintance that a lot of the votes for Brexit were due to thinly veiled racism over immigration and of course the 'promise' (by the tories of all people!?) of an extra £350 million per week or whatever it was into the NHS.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,712
I did ‘enjoy’* Sunak’s speech making much of how he has delivered Northern Ireland now having the best trade deal because it has access both to the U.K. market and EU market, and how great it was.

Sort of forgetting that so did the rest of the U.K. until recently!


*as in furiously.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,798
Location
West is best
I did ‘enjoy’* Sunak’s speech making much of how he has delivered Northern Ireland now having the best trade deal because it has access both to the U.K. market and EU market, and how great it was.

Sort of forgetting that so did the rest of the U.K. until recently!


*as in furiously.
Yes, exactly.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,774
I did ‘enjoy’* Sunak’s speech making much of how he has delivered Northern Ireland now having the best trade deal because it has access both to the U.K. market and EU market, and how great it was.

Sort of forgetting that so did the rest of the U.K. until recently!
Yes, he will need reminding of that plenty of times closer to the election. Might end up on a few advertising slogans..."(Great) Britain Isn't Working...But Northern Ireland Is".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


I posted the following first in the Sunak thread but thought it more appropriate here...

Can anyone help me on this? When we were in the EU and had freedom of movement, there was a rule both ways (??) that you could enter another country, search for a job and have benefits for three months and then they stop and you had to "go home" or support yourself?

If that is/was the case, who would pay those benefits, the host country or the one you came from? If it's the latter then a Spaniard in the UK would have been paid for by his own government? I think that's how the "free" use of health services was, if a UK needed treatment abroad via the EHIC (European Health Insurance Card) eventually the UK would pay the bill and the same for an EU entering the UK?

Or even if we paid their benefits, then our citizens over there would be paid by them, so it evens out??

If that is partly or wholly correct, with the numbers coming to the UK the home country would pay the bill, if not then with significant numbers of UK's working in the EU I suspect that costs would even themselves out. So EU immigration and a "stretch on resources" is a red herring? Whereas if people come from outside the EU, from countries where benefits ore low or non-existant, then that IS a huge cost to us; yet with the onset of Brexit that's actually what's happening, more coming from the outside?
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,872
Location
UK
BYD is also selling its new (new for us anyway) EV for a lot more than it retails for elsewhere. Not just a few quid more either.

Phone makers are now increasing prices considerably from their home market retail prices, while some brands have stopped selling phones in the UK entirely (but not within the EU). This is rumoured to be getting worse later this year. All the extra paperwork and logistical issues for us are cited.

I suppose if you hate China then you'll consider this a win, but we aren't making equivalent products to fill the gaps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top