Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[vonkeynotvenky]

People voted for Leave for all kinds of reasons. I'm sure lots of people who voted Leave favoured a hard Brexit, but it was a very very slim margin of victory and it would only take a tiny number of Leavers who are happy to stay in the customs union to mean the country overall favours a soft Brexit. Like I say, the wording of the referendum didn't give us a clear idea of what anybody wanted. It cuts both ways too, there were people who voted to remain who have very different ideas from eachother on what being part of the EU should entail.

On one hand you have some Leavers arguing that they're not all anti immigration and telling Remainers they all have minds of their own and they don't want to be tarred with the same brush. The second a soft Brexit is on the table the same people then want to pretend that every single person in that 52% had exactly the same mindset and wanted a hard Brexit. If we had another referendum tomorrow i'm quite certain we'd vote to remain to be honest.

But a soft brexit means no brexit we wont be leaving anything will we? In part I am agreeing with you but the fundamental bottle neck is the leaving the single market which ministers on all sides said is what a brexit vote would constitute. I am not saying we shouldn't renegotiate the single market access but there isn't one single aspect of the EU mechanism that the EU would concede I get the impression it's all or nothing.
Do you agree with the independents view on a soft brexit mate?

 

[geoff clipp]

if we had a second referendum and its was 48- 52 the other way around you'd have exactly the same problems your talking about now. leave won by a million + votes. you keep saying hard brexit, but a soft brexit as shown above is basically just staying in the eu. lots of remainers also voted for different reasons and lots were reluctant about voting remain. i wouldn't be suprised if we did have another referendum, as remainers dont like the first answer, we will probably have as many as possible until people vote remain. if remain had won by 52 % i dont think there is any chance wed have another one.

I'm not saying we should have one, but there's no doubt that people (on both sides) understand the complexities of the situation a little bit more now and are more informed, so i think another referendum would probably give a better indication of what the public actually wants. Not only that, both camps would have to campaign more honestly now. There would certainly be no arguing that we'd be sending an extra £350m a week to the NHS and also no promises that net immigration will significantly drop (points that were quickly refuted by Leave campaigners after the vote). Some of Remains scare stories would also need to be toned down a bit.

A soft Brexit isn't really the same as being in the EU (though admittedly it means being part of the same trading agreements.) Some people thought that leaving the EU meant extra money going into the NHS and a significant drop in immigration. Now they've been told that probably won't happen. If they're not getting that, it probably doesn't seem worth the hassle or the cost to al ot of those people anymore. Just my opinion but i personally think remain would easily win a second a referendum (and I say this as one of those that thought remain were far too complacent last time around and predicted a leave win).

 

[cibaman]

Any sensible PM would have looked at the referendum result, recognised that Leave won, but only just, and tried to come up with a proposal that most of the population could live with, even if nobody was 100% happy. That would have necessarily entailed legally leaving the EU and taking back significantly greater control over immigration. But at the same time recognising the huge concern that leaving the EU could have a damaging effect on trade. May gave the impression that she just didnt care about trade. "No deal is better than a bad deal" was a terrible slogan. Fine, in the confines of a meeting with EU officials, but never as a statement to the UK population.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

I'm not saying we should have one, but there's no doubt that people (on both sides) understand the complexities of the situation a little bit more now and are more informed, so i think another referendum would probably give a better indication of what the public actually wants. Not only that, both camps would have to campaign more honestly now. There would certainly be no arguing that we'd be sending an extra £350m a week to the NHS and also no promises that net immigration will significantly drop (points that were quickly refuted by Leave campaigners after the vote). Some of Remains scare stories would also need to be toned down a bit.

A soft Brexit isn't really the same as being in the EU (though admittedly it means being part of the same trading agreements.) Some people thought that leaving the EU meant extra money going into the NHS and a significant drop in immigration. Now they've been told that probably won't happen. If they're not getting that, it probably doesn't seem worth the hassle or the cost to al ot of those people anymore. Just my opinion but i personally think remain would easily win a second a referendum (and I say this as one of those that thought remain were far too complacent last time around and predicted a leave win).

a soft brexit is the same as being in the eu pretty much. wed have to accept pretty much everything we have now. the main thing people were told was about having control. if we stay in the single market/soft market we could still have no control over immigration, still subject to eu laws, unable to make trade agreements. my opinion remain wouldn't win, this election doesnt prove much about brexit. both parties ran on leaving the single market/brexit. i think thats just remainers trying to convince themselves.

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

Any sensible PM would have looked at the referendum result, recognised that Leave won, but only just, and tried to come up with a proposal that most of the population could live with, even if nobody was 100% happy. That would have necessarily entailed legally leaving the EU and taking back significantly greater control over immigration. But at the same time recognising the huge concern that leaving the EU could have a damaging effect on trade. May gave the impression that she just didnt care about trade. "No deal is better than a bad deal" was a terrible slogan. Fine, in the confines of a meeting with EU officials, but never as a statement to the UK population.

May didn't wrap it up too well did she? What politicians have got to recognise is that the unskilled working class have been left behind and the big corporations have used immigration and immigrants (Not their fault at all) to circumvent and undercut to improve their bottom line and erode rights, this has to stop.
As does calling a halt to even more integration into the EU glee club and we have to have more accountability for our home grown Parliamentary villains. I agree that there has to be a happy medium where we actually leave but we try to save some of the none invasive structure my doubt still remains that the EU wont budge hoping the UK will cave in an do an Ireland.

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

a soft brexit is the same as being in the eu pretty much. wed have to accept pretty much everything we have now. the main thing people were told was about having control. if we stay in the single market/soft market we could still have no control over immigration, still subject to eu laws, unable to make trade agreements. my opinion remain wouldn't win, this election doesnt prove much about brexit. both parties ran on leaving the single market/brexit. i think thats just remainers trying to convince themselves.

Many opinion polls show that the leave vote would be even higher. Not saying opinion polls are accurate I am just throwing it out there.

 

[BobKowalski]

Any sensible PM would have looked at the referendum result, recognised that Leave won, but only just, and tried to come up with a proposal that most of the population could live with, even if nobody was 100% happy. That would have necessarily entailed legally leaving the EU and taking back significantly greater control over immigration. But at the same time recognising the huge concern that leaving the EU could have a damaging effect on trade. May gave the impression that she just didnt care about trade. "No deal is better than a bad deal" was a terrible slogan. Fine, in the confines of a meeting with EU officials, but never as a statement to the UK population.

May cares little about trade. She is totally deaf to business. Her obsession is immigration which is why she framed the debate the way she did. People like Hammond have pushed for putting trade first (or as Corbyn styled it a 'jobs first Brexit) which is why May intended to sack Hammond after the election. Now you are seeing the push back from Tories to put trade back on top of the agenda.

What gets me is we have a two year timeframe and have spent 10% of that time dicking around with an election the outcome of which was to completely shred our first 'consensus' (or May's diktat) on how to approach Brexit. Cracking job there chaps. Well done.

 

[geoff clipp]

a soft brexit is the same as being in the eu. wed have to accept pretty much everything we have now. the main thing people were told was about having control. if we stay in the single market/soft market we could still have no control over immigration, still subject to eu laws, unable to make trade agreements. my opinion remain wouldn't win, this election doesnt prove much about brexit. both parties ran on leaving the single market/brexit. i think thats just remainers trying to convince themselves.

I don't think i'm going to be convinced that every single Leave voter favoured a hard brexit and like i keep saying, the margin of victory was a slim as it gets. I've heard a million times that "the country has spoken" but a 52/48 is nowhere near a conclusive answer. If it were as clear as people like to pretend it was the PM would have no trouble forcing through a hard brexit whatever the cost. There isn't the mandate to do that though. If there was a strong will to cut all ties and "take back control" even if it means crashing the economy then the government would go ahead and do it. That is not the sense they're getting off the electorate at the moment though. I've heard a lot about the left wing echo chamber over the past couple of years but I think some of the hard brexiteers would do well to step out of their brexit bubble and realise there isn't that much appetite across the nation as a whole to potentially crash the economy over something that won't actually make their day to day lives feel very much different at all.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

I don't think i'm going to be convinced that every single Leave voter favoured a hard brexit and like i keep saying, the margin of victory was a slim as it gets. I've heard a million times that "the country has spoken" but a 52/48 is nowhere near a conclusive answer. If it were as clear as people like to pretend it was the PM would have no trouble forcing through a hard brexit whatever the cost. There isn't the mandate to do that though. If there was a strong will to cut all ties and "take back control" even if it means crashing the economy then the government would go ahead and do it. That is not the sense they're getting off the electorate at the moment though. I've heard a lot about the left wing echo chamber over the past couple of years but I think some of the hard brexiteers would do well to step out of their brexit bubble and realise there isn't that much appetite across the nation as a whole to potentially crash the economy over something that won't actually make their day to day lives feel very much different at all.

of course not every single leave voter voted for a hard brexit, but if you dont leave the single market you arent leaving the eu. the margin of victory was 1 million + people, thats how referendums work, leave won. i dont think anyone saying cut all ties though both labour and the conservatives are saying they want out of the single market, there is no such thing imo as a hard brexit there is just brexit. a lot of people didn't vote on brexit in this election, they voted for all sorts of reasons anyway.

do you think if we left the single market the economy would crash and burn ? labour seem to disagree wit hthat.

 

[geoff clipp]

of course not every single leave voter voted for a hard brexit, but if you dont leave the single market you arent leaving the eu. the margin of victory was 1 million + people, thats how referendums work, leave won. i dont think anyone saying cut all ties though both labour and the conservatives are saying they want out of the single market, there is no such thing imo as a hard brexit there is just brexit. a lot of people didn't vote on brexit in this election, they voted for all sorts of reasons anyway.

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here as I'd just be repeating the same points i've already made.