Political relations between UK-EU

[frothy]

No. Just someone that was mistaken and normally can’t admit to the mistake. You still think it was in the best interests of the UK?

 

[frothy]

Yes

 

[Saddleworth2]

Yes

Would you like to explain your rationale?

 

[frothy]

Would you like to explain your rationale?

Why should i? it was a Democratic vote I new perfectly well why I voted the way i did, and every bit of news that's coming out of the EU regarding the UK just confirms it, your not going to change my mind, so let's just leave like that

 

[Saddleworth2]

Why should i? it was a Democratic vote I new perfectly well why I voted the way i did, and every bit of news that's coming out of the EU regarding the UK just confirms it, your not going to change my mind, so let's just leave like that

Fair enough mate. You know what you voted for and if you are happy then it must have been delivered. I was just interested in what it was.

 

[Vic]

Yes, it was. :) *emphasis on the 'was'.*

But has since been handled exceptionally poorly by a Conservative Government that only sought to satisfy one section of society, the hard brexiteers, not the soft leavers or the accepting remainers who wished to keep trade links open, but with the refusal of naysayers backing the initiative to leave to overturn it, i'm not in the least bit surprised things have turned out like they have. Had other like yourself promoted leaving the EU with a deal that kept our current trade arrangements, but sacking off the political associations (which the EU themselves offered us) instead of pushing the "Stop Brexit!" narrative, public furore would not have deteriorated into the toxic environment that it became with "sides" appearing, thus leading to the Tories gaining the required majority to push their version of "Brexit" that eventually came about.

This may come as a shock to you, but there were/are many of us who would have been quite satisfied with the "soft brexit" (*cough* EFTA membership *cough*), eg staying in the single market but out of the customs union, both those who voted to remain and leave alike, but as soon as the toxic extremist Hard Brexit Leavers and Stop Brexit Remainers from both sides took over the debates narrative, it became a war of wills and only one side was going to win out.

As it happened the Hard Brexit Leavers won, and here we are. We had a chance to square this all away in 2018, but none of the extremist leavers and remainers wanted compromise. They wanted it their way. Leaving the EU was the only option a nation constantly at odds with the direction the EU was heading could feasibly take. That was becoming obvious (similar to the Scottish Independence debate) But would you choose an option to also cut Scotland off economically from the UK and the EU to become solely independent? I doubt it, and many of us on leave didn't advocate that either, (*cough* EFTA membership *cough*) but nobody wanted to listen to the rational side of the debate, it was "total separation!" or "reject leaving entirely!" Oh if only a few more rational voices were heard and respected eh...

(To the "usual suspects", don't @ me, I won't bother responding to you :D )

The "Stop Brexit" narrative was because the Tories never seemed to think your soft Brexit was going to be enough, despite the promises.

Lest we forget, it was the official stance of Vote Leave that we would still be in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border. Even the bloviator knew that was a lie, and once that lie was exposed Stop Brexit became a moral and indeed patriotic duty.

You would have been satisfied with the soft Brexit, I think you know most Remainers would have accepted that, the obvious compromise on a 52/48 Vote.

I know the Remain campaign warned that voting Leave would mean leaving the SM and the CU, but the great lie was the Leave one that it wouldn't.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Yes, it was. :) *emphasis on the 'was'.*

But has since been handled exceptionally poorly by a Conservative Government that only sought to satisfy one section of society, the hard brexiteers, not the soft leavers or the accepting remainers who wished to keep trade links open, but with the refusal of naysayers backing the initiative to leave to overturn it, i'm not in the least bit surprised things have turned out like they have. Had other like yourself promoted leaving the EU with a deal that kept our current trade arrangements, but sacking off the political associations (which the EU themselves offered us) instead of pushing the "Stop Brexit!" narrative, public furore would not have deteriorated into the toxic environment that it became with "sides" appearing, thus leading to the Tories gaining the required majority to push their version of "Brexit" that eventually came about.

This may come as a shock to you, but there were/are many of us who would have been quite satisfied with the "soft brexit" (*cough* EFTA membership *cough*), eg staying in the single market but out of the customs union, both those who voted to remain and leave alike, but as soon as the toxic extremist Hard Brexit Leavers and Stop Brexit Remainers from both sides took over the debates narrative, it became a war of wills and only one side was going to win out.

As it happened the Hard Brexit Leavers won, and here we are. We had a chance to square this all away in 2018, but none of the extremist leavers and remainers wanted compromise. They wanted it their way. Leaving the EU was the only option a nation constantly at odds with the direction the EU was heading could feasibly take. That was becoming obvious (similar to the Scottish Independence debate) But would you choose an option to also cut Scotland off economically from the UK and the EU to become solely independent? I doubt it, and many of us on leave didn't advocate that either, (*cough* EFTA membership *cough*) but nobody wanted to listen to the rational side of the debate, it was "total separation!" or "reject leaving entirely!" Oh if only a few more rational voices were heard and respected eh...

(To the "usual suspects", don't @ me, I won't bother responding to you :D )

Interesting that you say that the ‘hard brexiters’ won, as if there had ever been an alternative, which would have been,I assume, what you’re referring to as a ‘soft brexit’.
This presumably would have taken the form of any of the tremendous options of ‘being like Norway’, ‘being like Switzerland’, ‘having our cake and eating it’, ‘holding all the cards’, ’striking the easiest deals known to man’, or any of the other wonderful visions we were sold, or imagined ever existed.
But, sadly, you were given a simple binary vote, in or out, and you were certainly not given any options on what those choices actually entailed. Because they were never on the ballot paper, all those other options, to all intents and purposes, never existed. You voted for something completely undefined, then handed total control of it and its shape and form and consequences to others, some elected and some not.
The only form of brexit that was ever on the table, was, and is, the one you have now. There was never any other options, particularly after we voted in a government to implement it, that had hitched its wagon to ‘getting brexit done’ at any cost, led by a liar whose entire career hung on his servile arse licking of people like the arch- brexiteer owners of the Telegraph, whom Johnson described as being ‘his real bosses’ and who signed treaties and protocols which - out of his own mouth- he had no intention of keeping.
This brexit was conceived, designed, implemented, and more suspiciously, financed by a group of fairly extreme right-wingers (many former ukip members) in the Tory party, a group of very wealthy and powerful businessmen and media barons and most dangerously of all, parties from another country not best known for their concern for the economic and social welfare of Western Europe or the British people.
Still, you knew what you were voting for- but I‘m fed up with people saying ’this isn’t the brexit I voted for’.

 

[Metal Biker]

Interesting that you say that the ‘hard brexiters’ won, as if there had ever been an alternative, which would have been,I assume, what you’re referring to as a ‘soft brexit’.
This presumably would have taken the form of any of the tremendous options of ‘being like Norway’, ‘being like Switzerland’, ‘having our cake and eating it’, ‘holding all the cards’, ’striking the easiest deals known to man’, or any of the other wonderful visions we were sold, or imagined ever existed.
But, sadly, you were given a simple binary vote, in or out, and you were certainly not given any options on what those choices actually entailed. Because they were never on the ballot paper, all those other options, to all intents and purposes, never existed. You voted for something completely undefined, then handed total control of it and its shape and form and consequences to others, some elected and some not.
The only form of brexit that was ever on the table, was, and is, the one you have now. There was never any other options, particularly after we voted in a government to implement it, that had hitched its wagon to ‘getting brexit done’ at any cost, led by a liar whose entire career hung on his servile arse licking of people like the arch- brexiteer owners of the Telegraph, whom Johnson described as being ‘his real bosses’ and who signed treaties and protocols which - out of his own mouth- he had no intention of keeping.
This brexit was conceived, designed, implemented, and more suspiciously, financed by a group of fairly extreme right-wingers (many former ukip members) in the Tory party, a group of very wealthy and powerful businessmen and media barons and most dangerously of all, parties from another country not best known for their concern for the economic and social welfare of Western Europe or the British people.
Still, you knew what you were voting for- but I‘m fed up with people saying ’this isn’t the brexit I voted for’.

I never said anything like "this isn't the brexit I voted for".

I voted to leave the EU in 2016. Nothing more, nothing less. That was the question posed by the Government in power at the time (whose leader subsequently decided to step down after the vote didn't go his way). I observed the shitshow that followed from both sides incapable of reaching a compromise which eventually ended up with the Tories putting forward their "brexit deal" policy in 2019 that, along with their Parliamentary majority, is what we ended up leaving the EU with. If you didn't want to leave the EU with the proposal the Tories put forward in 2019, the idea was not to vote for them. I didn't.

Wasn't my choice or preferred method on how we should have left, but by that stage, nobody, yes not even you, were prepared to listen to any other alternatives other than "we must remain" or "we must leave by the Tories deal", neither of which was something I could advocate for. In case you'd forgotten, there were three "leave" arguments; one was to leave the political aspect of our relationship with the EU but keep the economic aspect intact, two was to leave but organise an entirely new deal that granted more economic and political freedoms, the third was to sever all ties altogether.

I know this is inconvenient for you to accept, but the argument to leave, and a lot of leave voters, were also from a left-wing/centrist ideological viewpoint; the EU is not perfect and whilst others sought to remain, those exact same people were also demanding reforms of the EU to address the valid concerns being raised that led to the discussion about terminating our membership. I had supported EU membership, I had supported the EU, but for a long time I was beginning to have doubts about whether continued membership was in our best interests and was it worth the hassle and were there better ways to trade with them.

After the meeting with Tusk my fears and concerns about the EU now being a self-interested, tone-deaf political juggernaut that sought more power, were confirmed. It was no longer the union I wished to belong to; solely a trading union of nations, so when asked my opinion about continued membership I answered honestly. I and others who voted cannot solely be blamed directly because you, like many others of your ilk, also refused to see the many other options that were on the table that hard-line Tories refused (that the EU themselves even offered to us, a Canada-type deal, EFTA membership etc).

I was asked my opinion and I gave it, under the premise that the nation would research the best compromise to leave, but due to the toxic debate, it became about "winning" rather than what was best. That hostility led the "hard brexit" supporters to just become harder, whilst the rest of us simply stopped caring and let whatever happened, happened. You weren't going to listen to us anymore, anyway. You were probably like many others of that time, shouting "stop brexit" at your TV screen at every opportunity rather than go "okay, leaving is a fact now, which option to leave do we best support that satisfies both viewpoints". Had you sided with the accepting remainers and the soft-leave voters, we might not have ended up leaving with the deal that we did. But it soothes you to blame people like me, doesn't it.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Interesting that you say that the ‘hard brexiters’ won, as if there had ever been an alternative, which would have been,I assume, what you’re referring to as a ‘soft brexit’.
This presumably would have taken the form of any of the tremendous options of ‘being like Norway’, ‘being like Switzerland’, ‘having our cake and eating it’, ‘holding all the cards’, ’striking the easiest deals known to man’, or any of the other wonderful visions we were sold, or imagined ever existed.
But, sadly, you were given a simple binary vote, in or out, and you were certainly not given any options on what those choices actually entailed. Because they were never on the ballot paper, all those other options, to all intents and purposes, never existed. You voted for something completely undefined, then handed total control of it and its shape and form and consequences to others, some elected and some not.
The only form of brexit that was ever on the table, was, and is, the one you have now. There was never any other options, particularly after we voted in a government to implement it, that had hitched its wagon to ‘getting brexit done’ at any cost, led by a liar whose entire career hung on his servile arse licking of people like the arch- brexiteer owners of the Telegraph, whom Johnson described as being ‘his real bosses’ and who signed treaties and protocols which - out of his own mouth- he had no intention of keeping.
This brexit was conceived, designed, implemented, and more suspiciously, financed by a group of fairly extreme right-wingers (many former ukip members) in the Tory party, a group of very wealthy and powerful businessmen and media barons and most dangerously of all, parties from another country not best known for their concern for the economic and social welfare of Western Europe or the British people.
Still, you knew what you were voting for- but I‘m fed up with people saying ’this isn’t the brexit I voted for’.

Spot on. The "not what I voted for" lot are less in touch with reality than FBPE.

It was obvious that it would end in a Tory shitfest and the same bankrupt idealogy and economic model would be turned up to 11.

If EFTA was a viable alternative to the EU the UK wouldn't left it to join the EU, and it wouldn't contain only 2 of the 7 founding members.

 

[bluejon]

I was asked my opinion and I gave it, under the premise that the nation would research the best compromise to leave, but due to the toxic debate, it became about "winning" rather than what was best. That hostility led the "hard brexit" supporters to just become harder, whilst the rest of us simply stopped caring and let whatever happened, happened. You weren't going to listen to us anymore, anyway. You were probably like many others of that time, shouting "stop brexit" at your TV screen at every opportunity rather than go "okay, leaving is a fact now, which option to leave do we best support that satisfies both viewpoints". Had you sided with the accepting remainers and the soft-leave voters, we might not have ended up leaving with the deal that we did. But it soothes you to blame people like me, doesn't it.

do you not see though, that toxic debate was pushed by the same people who are now in gov. it didn't become about "winning" because of the debate, they made it about 'winning' and the toxic debate followed. it was essentially turned into a test of patriotism in the eyes of many, which is always dangerous.

as for your points about remain not going along with it, that isn't how democracy works. but it wasn't the remain crowd who stopped the votes on may's deal going through, it was the full on leave lot. and they did it because they knew if may's deal didn't get through, they were in prime position to take over the party. this was always about power, the EU question is somewhat, weirdly, a red herring. i don't believe for one fucking second boris johnson made his mind up the night before he announced, and had two speeches written. bullshit.

anyway.... you are correct that if labour had voted for it, it would have happened, and that would be preferable to now, yes. but labour never wanted this, and under democratic norms are allowed to vote whichever way they choose. they voted because they didn't want it. johnson et al voted the way they did because they wanted control of the party