How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

Which three withdrawal agreements would you have drawn up? If you want me to vote upon one then I'll take the one with the most cherrys please. It isn't fair to place this burden upon people because they just won't know unless it's relatively absolute. Either way the EU refused to negotiate any form of withdrawal agreement unless we triggered Article 50 so this was definitely impossible to do as part of a referendum.

We couldn't say to the EU for example that we're thinking of leaving so what leave would you accept? They would not entertain that in any shape or form. This is the only part that I can forgive with May but she would of had much more authority if she knew something of what she wanted with a party that supported her but she had neither of these.

Remember that at the time of the referendum the Tory party were in government and not Farage, Cameron was elected in 2015 to deliver a referendum. The Tory position at the referendum was to remain and that was the position of the majority of the establishment, big finance, big business etc. It wasn't the high class establishment that caused Brexit, it was the opposite, a rejection of that establishment.
A) leave the EU but retain membership of the Customs Union
B) leave the EU but retain membership of the Common Travel Area
C) No deal Brexit
These are just very rough drafts, and two of them I believe would have been a fairly easy sell to Brussels
 
Which three withdrawal agreements would you have drawn up? If you want me to vote upon one then I'll take the one with the most cherrys please. It isn't fair to place this burden upon people because they just won't know unless it's relatively absolute. Either way the EU refused to negotiate any form of withdrawal agreement unless we triggered Article 50 so this was definitely impossible to do as part of a referendum.

We couldn't say to the EU for example that we're thinking of leaving so what leave would you accept? They would not entertain that in any shape or form. This is the only part that I can forgive with May but she would of had much more authority if she knew something of what she wanted with a party that supported her but she had neither of these.

Remember that at the time of the referendum the Tory party were in government and not Farage, Cameron was elected in 2015 to deliver a referendum. The Tory position at the referendum was to remain and that was the position of the majority of the establishment, big finance, big business etc. It wasn't the high class establishment that caused Brexit, it was the opposite, a rejection of that establishment.
Your memory seems better than most on here. It's worth noting that May was trying to carry a parliament that like the public was split around 50/50 on Brexit and she had a much smaller majority than Boris would later have.
She invoked article 50 both as a procedural necessity but also as a way of pacifying the pro Brexit RW of her own party, while presenting a deal that was so bad she was hoping it would get voted down so we could have a second referendum and she could claim to have tried her best
Meanwhile labour were promising (if they were in power) to negotiate a deal then campaign against it!
All a bit disingenuous and essentially a stalemate which is why the Boris 'get Brexit done' thing cut through.
 
A) leave the EU but retain membership of the Customs Union
B) leave the EU but retain membership of the Common Travel Area
C) No deal Brexit
These are just very rough drafts, and two of them I believe would have been a fairly easy sell to Brussels
This isn't really a vote because you're essentially saying that we must sort of remain or leave entirely with the worst case leave scenario. One is a great option for remain whereas the other is a terrible option for leave.

Nobody cares about the CTA so that can be discounted.

What about EFTA or something more resembling Norway or Switzerland? I would vote for that, these are the kind of discussions that should have happened prior to triggering Article 50 but it didn't happen.
 
Your memory seems better than most on here. It's worth noting that May was trying to carry a parliament that like the public was split around 50/50 on Brexit and she had a much smaller majority than Boris would later have.
She invoked article 50 both as a procedural necessity but also as a way of pacifying the pro Brexit RW of her own party, while presenting a deal that was so bad she was hoping it would get voted down so we could have a second referendum and she could claim to have tried her best
Meanwhile labour were promising (if they were in power) to negotiate a deal then campaign against it!
All a bit disingenuous and essentially a stalemate which is why the Boris 'get Brexit done' thing cut through.
‘May’…‘Boris’.

Is he your mate?

Or is it just that you’d like him to be?
 
Thought so. You need to shake off this crippling insecurity because he’ll never be your mate.

Call him Johnson and set yourself free.
I love him too much for it to ever be just friends. I see trump and farage as my friends but with Boris the attraction goes deeper. Not as much as I love Hitler or netanyahu, but close....
 
I love him too much for it to ever be just friends. I see trump and farage as my friends but with Boris the attraction goes deeper. Not as much as I love Hitler or netanyahu, but close....
Show some fucking respect for the Israeli overlord and spell his fucking name with a capital ’N’.
 
These are the kind of discussions that should have happened prior to triggering Article 50 but it didn't happen.
This debate was shot down by the hard right brexit purists. They insisted they had the will of the people behind them when they did not. They knew brexit would be shit so wanted the narrative of brexit has not been fully delivered to fall back on. Farage still uses this excuse even though the outcome he promotes now would be economic suicide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
This debate was shot down by the hard right brexit purists. They insisted they had the will of the people behind them when they did not. They knew brexit would be shit so wanted the narrative of brexit has not been fully delivered to fall back on. Farage still uses this excuse even though the outcome he promotes now would be economic suicide.
I thought COVID was the excuse?
 
This isn't really a vote because you're essentially saying that we must sort of remain or leave entirely with the worst case leave scenario. One is a great option for remain whereas the other is a terrible option for leave.

Nobody cares about the CTA so that can be discounted.

What about EFTA or something more resembling Norway or Switzerland? I would vote for that, these are the kind of discussions that should have happened prior to triggering Article 50 but it didn't happen.

EFTA pretty much is option B, all the countries in it are in the CTA (which plenty do care about on both sides of the argument).

Ultimately, all these discussions did happen in the run up to the referendum as well as after, hence why Gove said his “we’ve had enough of experts” remark.

Thats where leave always had an advantage. Their pitch was a lot easier sell to those that wanted to hear it.
 
Last edited:
EFTA pretty much is option B, all the countries in it are in the CTA (which plenty do care about).
The CTA is an arrangement between the UK and Ireland and is irrelevant to EU countries. Maybe the previous poster meant freedom of movement which indeed would apply to all countries in the EU.

I say people aren't interested in the CTA because they aren't. I live in England and I don't need to travel to Ireland or ROI so that option is irrelevant to me. I would keep freedom of movement but unfortunately that was never going to be an option and the EU would not budge to discount that alongside retaining free trade.

That isn't to say that it isn't an issue but to me I don't really see the problem with a technical border between ROI/Ireland. The irony is that today there is a border, but due to Irish nationalist terrorism it sits in the Irish Sea...

I'm not sure what the best answer is because I'm admittedly not an expert but then the electorate at large aren't either which is why I think it's mad to expect people to vote upon such complex issues. We elect politicians to deliver answers to these problems.
 
The CTA is an arrangement between the UK and Ireland and is irrelevant to EU countries. Maybe the previous poster meant freedom of movement which indeed would apply to all countries in the EU.

I say people aren't interested in the CTA because they aren't. I live in England and I don't need to travel to Ireland or ROI so that option is irrelevant to me. I would keep freedom of movement but unfortunately that was never going to be an option and the EU would not budge to discount that alongside retaining free trade.

That isn't to say that it isn't an issue but to me if there was a technical border between ROI/Ireland then I don't really see the problem. However, the irony is due to Irish nationalist terrorism there is now a border in the Irish Sea instead so it is possible....

I'm not sure what the best answer is because I'm admittedly not an expert but then the electorate at large aren't either which is why I think it's mad to expect people to vote upon such complex issues.

Pretty sure by the common travel area, he meant with the EU and freedom of movement, it wouldn’t have made sense as an option if he didn’t.
 
Maybe @Churchlawtonblue can give us his say on how Brexit could have been handled differently. All, and I mean all, economists agree that Brexit has been a disaster but maybe, just maybe, he knows differently??
Hi Fred, I'm no expert clearly. But I thought we could have got a bit better deal. We had much that we could have used to negotiate with. I debated this at length on this forum at the time and dont really want to go into it all again in detail now. But we are where we are. I don't dispute we are worse off economically, the majority of signs indicate this, but the economy wasn't the only only reason people voted out though. On the positive, things are improving and our economy is now doing better than several larger eu countries. We can only hope it continues to improve under the new government. Cheers
 
The most critical error was not how the referendum was held or the fact that it was held nor was it the fault of the actual negotiation. The most critical error was triggering Article 50 without any understanding of what type of leave we wanted. We could have spent years trying to determine what leave should be.

Instead of doing this Theresa May triggered Article 50, a timed process to leave without any knowledge of what leave should be. She then held an election and lost every single ounce of whatever Parliamentary authority she had. She then sent people to negotiate leave against the clock and the end result predictably was a total bodge.

The current disaster of Brexit is not down to the fact that people decided to leave. It's 100% down to the chaos and internal battlings in Parliament and especially the Tory Party. At the 2017 election Labour/Corbyn could have been thrust into power, 6 months into a 2 year negotiation process with the EU and Labour had no Brexit policy whatsoever!

The entire process was ridiculously easy pickings for the EU because there was never any parliamentary authority and there was also no other alternative as it would have been worse under Labour. It was always going to either get reversed or end in some form of compromise, Boris was eventually elected and he just accepted anything which is where it has ended.

Who has been held accountable for this total failure and how many inquiries have there been into what actually happened? None. So how can anybody blame voters who were asked a single question with just two possible answers? The burden of this is not on voters, it's on the morons who drove us off the cliff, Theresa May even got a peerage for it!
A bit of revisionism there. I seem to recall lots of posters saying (of voting Leave) "We knew what we were voting for" but you're now arguing that they are not to blame - because they didn't know what they were voting for!
 
The CTA is an arrangement between the UK and Ireland and is irrelevant to EU countries. Maybe the previous poster meant freedom of movement which indeed would apply to all countries in the EU.

I say people aren't interested in the CTA because they aren't. I live in England and I don't need to travel to Ireland or ROI so that option is irrelevant to me. I would keep freedom of movement but unfortunately that was never going to be an option and the EU would not budge to discount that alongside retaining free trade.

That isn't to say that it isn't an issue but to me I don't really see the problem with a technical border between ROI/Ireland. The irony is that today there is a border, but due to Irish nationalist terrorism it sits in the Irish Sea...

I'm not sure what the best answer is because I'm admittedly not an expert but then the electorate at large aren't either which is why I think it's mad to expect people to vote upon such complex issues. We elect politicians to deliver answers to these problems.
What? Blaming the IRA when it's the Unionists (and the Tories) who were putting the Good Friday Agreement at risk.
 
The CTA is an arrangement between the UK and Ireland and is irrelevant to EU countries. Maybe the previous poster meant freedom of movement which indeed would apply to all countries in the EU.

I say people aren't interested in the CTA because they aren't. I live in England and I don't need to travel to Ireland or ROI so that option is irrelevant to me. I would keep freedom of movement but unfortunately that was never going to be an option and the EU would not budge to discount that alongside retaining free trade.

That isn't to say that it isn't an issue but to me I don't really see the problem with a technical border between ROI/Ireland. The irony is that today there is a border, but due to Irish nationalist terrorism it sits in the Irish Sea...

I'm not sure what the best answer is because I'm admittedly not an expert but then the electorate at large aren't either which is why I think it's mad to expect people to vote upon such complex issues. We elect politicians to deliver answers to these problems.
No. Sorry. I’ve read this about four times now and have no idea what point you think you are making.
 
A bit of revisionism there. I seem to recall lots of posters saying (of voting Leave) "We knew what we were voting for" but you're now arguing that they are not to blame - because they didn't know what they were voting for!
They are to blame. It was fucking obvious what the most sensible choice was.
 
There isn't a mess, the UK should determine it's own future.
OK. So what part of brexit has been a resounding success, then?

I take it you don't think a loss of trade to the value of £140B is anything to be concerned about. Major manufacturers are warning their time in the UK is under review due to the problems our exit is causing them, many smaller scale exporters have given up due to the increased bureaucracy and costs of exporting, and increasing numbers of exporters to the UK from the EU are similarly giving up trading with us.

Next year, £2B is going to be added to the cost of our food imports from the EU following the imposition of new import controls, pushing up food inflation yet again.

Those aren't the the results of a country detemining its own future, it's one of subsevience. Our days of being a rule maker, which we had as one of the 'big 3' along with France and Germany whilst we were members of the EU, are well and truly over.

How would you tackle those issues, and more, that will increasingly be coming our way as we have to honour our commitment to the Trade and Co-operation agreement conditions Boris Johnson signed and dutifully ignored which are now strangling trade with our closest partners?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top