Brexit matters

[alex397]

Don't blame the country - most people did not vote for Brexit.

No, I still blame the country as a whole.
The many who didn’t bother to vote, the severe lack of education of what the EU actually does (it seems only geeks or those with a deep level of interest of politics have any idea, when really most people should have a basic knowledge) and the poor campaigning from pro-EU groups which I think failed to show the general public the benefits of being in the EU (rather than the negatives of leaving).
The media should never have been allowed to get away with publishing the lies they did about the EU and the scaremongering about Eastern Europeans.
Our government should have thought much more about the referendum. A referendum which had such a tight result should not have meant that Leave ‘won’ - there should have been a much higher majority in order to allow such huge changes.
There should have been far more compromise in how we left the EU considering how close the result was.

If we had just remained in the EU, or left but with closer ties, things would be so much easier and far less complicated.

 

[najaB]

The many who didn’t bother to vote, the severe lack of education of what the EU actually does...

And you've given the reason that it isn't fair to blame the country as a whole: most people simply didn't know enough to make an informed decision.

As an example, what's your opinion on the resolution of the Schleswig-Holstein question?

The blame lies with David Cameron for calling the referendum in the first place, on Parliament for not setting the terms of the referendum more clearly, for both campaigns for the way that they conducted themselves, on all parties for allowing the May mess and mostly on the Conservative party post-May.

 

[nw1]

Up to 14-hour waits at Dover a ‘reasonable worst case‘ scenario from October.

But, hey, "take back control" and all that.
My theory on Brexit is what it always was. A massive ego trip by the Conservative Party and a financial benefit to some of their backers. The power and the money, the money and the power.

Brexiteers going bonkers because Sunak has agreed to screen new laws to ensure that they won’t create new trade barriers.

No exemption for the ‘90 in 180 days’ rule for British expats in France. (My god, how are we going to survive the winter if we can’t stay in St Trop?)

One of only about three enthusiastic Brexiters I know was an ex-colleague with a place in France. Talk about turkeys and Christmas, and talk about hypocrisy on an unbelievable scale (see also: Peter Lilley). He was also a fully paid-up Tory, had a strong dislike of the Republican movement in Northern Ireland, and was the only genuine rabid anti-semite (real anti-semite, rather than someone who is concerned about Palestinian rights and opposes the war in Gaza) I knew. Nice guy.

And, worst of all...a possible shortage of flowers for Valentines Day. (So you will have to give her a native British plant (which it isn’t) such as a giant hogweed.)

ROFL! (Wrong time of year anyway, unless they have spread to Australia or New Zealand).

 

[Richard Scott]

While they share blame, it's a bit unfair to say that they're equally to blame.

By way of an analogy: the person who opened the door has isn't equally responsible for the killings as the serial murderer they let in.

Don't need an analogy, they could gave easily voted for what May had negotiated. It really didn't take an Einstein to work out what would happen next.

 

[nw1]

No, I still blame the country as a whole.
The many who didn’t bother to vote, the severe lack of education of what the EU actually does (it seems only geeks or those with a deep level of interest of politics have any idea, when really most people should have a basic knowledge) and the poor campaigning from pro-EU groups which I think failed to show the general public the benefits of being in the EU (rather than the negatives of leaving).
The media should never have been allowed to get away with publishing the lies they did about the EU and the scaremongering about Eastern Europeans.
Our government should have thought much more about the referendum. A referendum which had such a tight result should not have meant that Leave ‘won’ - there should have been a much higher majority in order to allow such huge changes.
There should have been far more compromise in how we left the EU considering how close the result was.

If we had just remained in the EU, or left but with closer ties, things would be so much easier and far less complicated.

I predominantly blame the politicians and their associates, as everything can be blamed on them essentially - not the country. I suspect a lot of people who voted Leave expected something a lot softer, and that was certainly the general impression I got prior to the referendum. If Brexit happened it would be a soft one. So I don't blame people just for voting Leave as many probably expected a Norway-type setup.

The Vote Leave campaign is another matter, though. In my opinion they appeared to tell what seem to have been blatant lies. "More money for the NHS". Bunkum. "No change in status for EU citizens". What's the settlement plan all about then? To my mind the main motivations of the Vote Leave campaign were power and personal gain. Witness its figurehead Boris Johnson. Do you really think he believed in Brexit for some kind of higher reason? Of course not. It was his route to becoming PM, and it worked, at least for a while. I actually think, IMO, that he's a remainer really, but was quite happy to let Brexit happen in order to become PM. After all, he probably meets the "wealthy person" criterion to easily emigrate where he likes, anyhow. And as a wealthy person he will not be impacted financially by Brexit, either.

Cameron for not stipulating that Brexit should require a convincing majority (e.g. 60% of vote, or >50% of the entire adult population) to be enacted.

The Tory Party who even under May insisted on a version with no FoM and worse, no customs union or single market. There was absolutely no compromise. We would probably all have accepted Brexit had it been a soft version, in accordance with the tight referendum result. There was no question on the referendum about the FoM, the customs union or single market, and therefore no moral imperative to drop those freedoms. That was something purely fabricated by the Conservatives, based on assumptions (at least 25 out of 26 Leave voters wanted those freedoms dropped) rather than hard evidence.

And worse, Johnson for going for something even more "hard".

One could also blame Corbyn a little for not speaking up for remainers, but he did redeem himself later, in 2019, and was a much more effective opposition then. Sadly the hatchet-job on Corbyn meant he didn't have a chance against Johnson. If there is one organisation I blame more than anyone else, it is the Conservative Party. Brexit is all their fault, and I continue to believe that the prime motivation of Brexit - more than anything else - was about power for the Conservative Party.

 

[Enthusiast]

Indeed. But that was the status quo, so only a minority indicated a desire for change.

Then those who wanted no change should have got off their backsides and voted for it. After all, it wasn't a secret that "the government will implement what you decide" (even though some factions strained every sinew to avoid it). Those words were included in the pamphlet that was sent to every household. The more likely reason those who didn't vote failed to do so was because they cared not one way or the other. That is the only reasonable conclusion you can draw and adding non-voters to either side is simply illogical.

 

[najaB]

I continue to believe that the prime motivation of Brexit - more than anything else - was about power for the Conservative Party

Not the party. Most Conservative party members are (or at least we're at the time) reasonable, rational, regular people.

 

[nw1]

Not the party. Most Conservative party members are (or at least we're at the time) reasonable, rational, regular people.

But wasn't that Cameron's motivation? He felt that the Tories were threatened by Farage's lot, so promised and implemented a poorly-designed referendum that could pass on 50.000001% of those voting (or well under 40% of voters) because he felt that it would cause the Tories to gain UKIP votes.

Or was it just about Cameron's personal power? Monumental mistake if so, if there was no Brexit referendum he'd almost certainly have been in power until at least May 2020, perhaps longer if he changed his mind about standing down then.

Then those who wanted no change should have got off their backsides and voted for it. After all, it wasn't a secret that "the government will implement what you decide" (even though some factions strained every sinew to avoid it). Those words were included in the pamphlet that was sent to every household. The more likely reason those who didn't vote failed to do so was because they cared not one way or the other. That is the only reasonable conclusion you can draw and adding non-voters to either side is simply illogical.

I disagree there. Radical change requires support from an absolute majority of the population to enact it, and even then, referendum results need to be sanity-checked by non-partisan experts who understand the consequences.

I would argue the same for something more "liberal" and something which I have some sympathy towards, such as cannabis legalisation. While I probably think this should happen, on balance, a 37%-of-the-electorate result from a referendum is not enough evidence on its own that it should. On the other hand, other forms of evidence (such as hard medical evidence to suggest it will not cause a public health problem) - without a referendum - would be sufficient for a change in the law.

Cameron is of course the person to blame ultimately on this though. Due to Cameron's badly-designed referendum, May felt duty-bound to implement it, and I will concede that is reasonable. What May did wrong, though, was the assumption that the overwhelming majority of Leave voters wanted to remove FoM and leave the customs union and single market, without hard evidence to suggest this (such as a further referendum on this matter).

So the lot of them have contributed towards the mess, IMO.

 

[najaB]

That is the only reasonable conclusion you can draw and adding non-voters to either side is simply illogical.

Which is where this started.

My statement was "most people did not vote for Brexit". No need to add in or include anyone else.

 

[DelW]

Not the party. Most Conservative party members are (or at least we're at the time) reasonable, rational, regular people.

Their (subsequent) collective view that Liz Truss would make a good (or even an adequate) Prime Minister might suggest otherwise though.

 

[Tester]

Their (subsequent) collective view that Liz Truss would make a good (or even an adequate) Prime Minister might suggest otherwise though.

To be fair, it might be perfectly rational for them to choose a PM who will give them what they want.

Human nature and all that.....

Note how they didn't get to choose her successor though - I wonder if they will next time

 

[Richard Scott]

But wasn't that Cameron's motivation? He felt that the Tories were threatened by Farage's lot, so promised and implemented a poorly-designed referendum that could pass on 50.000001% of those voting (or well under 40% of voters) because he felt that it would cause the Tories to gain UKIP votes.

That may be so but there were a not inconsiderable number of murmurs from people of all political persuasions about the EU so perhaps he thought may 'nip it in the bud' and totally underestimated the actual support for leaving EU.
If it had been left may have become an issue anyway? It may have faded away but I doubt it with people like Farage stirring the pot.
Need to remember all sorts voted for Brexit not just Conservative voters.

 

[nw1]

That may be so but there were a not inconsiderable number of murmurs from people of all political persuasions about the EU so perhaps he thought may 'nip it in the bud' and totally underestimated the actual support for leaving EU.
If it had been left may have become an issue anyway? It may have faded away but I doubt it with people like Farage stirring the pot.
Need to remember all sorts voted for Brexit not just Conservative voters.

To be honest if it was left I suspect the issue would have faded away, particularly due to demographics (younger and middle-generation voters having grown up with the EEC and EU and thus seeing it as the "normal").

I suspect people would have eventually got bored with Farage ranting on about it. Every fashion has its day, and the anti-EU fashion probably peaked in the 2010s.

One factor also, of course, is I suspect a lot of people voted Brexit just to spite Cameron, remember this was fresh out of austerity and PigGate. This I suspect is where some, at least, of the non-Tory Leave vote came from. Still others may have had something of a problem with the EU, but wanted to retain its benefits (i.e a Norway solution). We will never know precisely how many people actually wanted a Hard Brexit in June 2016, because that question was not on the referendum, but I'd hazard a guess that only a minority did.

 

[najaB]

We will never know precisely how many people actually wanted a Hard Brexit in June 2016, because that question was not on the referendum, but I'd hazard a guess that only a minority did.

If you mean of the total electorate then, by definition, you would be correct.

Only a minority expressed a preference for Brexit, and we know that some proportion of that cohort wanted a softer form of Brexit.

Anecdote isn't data, but of the people I know who were in favour of Brexit, it was something like a 1:2 split for "hard" vs "soft".

 

[Gloster]

To be honest if it was left I suspect the issue would have faded away, particularly due to demographics (younger and middle-generation voters having grown up with the EEC and EU and thus seeing it as the "normal").

I suspect people would have eventually got bored with Farage ranting on about it. Every fashion has its day, and the anti-EU fashion probably peaked in the 2010s.

One factor also, of course, is I suspect a lot of people voted Brexit just to spite Cameron, remember this was fresh out of austerity and PigGate. This I suspect is where some, at least, of the non-Tory Leave vote came from. Still others may have had something of a problem with the EU, but wanted to retain its benefits (i.e a Norway solution). We will never know precisely how many people actually wanted a Hard Brexit in June 2016, because that question was not on the referendum, but I'd hazard a guess that only a minority did.

My feeling is that it is more that people were already beginning to get fed up with Cameron and the Conservatives and just could not be bothered to vote, even if they would rather remain. My opinion, and I stress that this is my opinion (even if it is fairly obvious), is that the Leave side mobilised just about everybody who wanted to leave, even if only with a soft Brexit, to go and vote, while the lacklustre ‘campaign’ by the Remain side failed to get their supporters out or even to properly explain the consequences.

 

[nw1]

If you mean of the total electorate then, by definition, you would be correct.

In this instance I mean of those who voted. So of the 52% of the participants who voted Leave, I suspect that (much) less than 25 in 26 wanted a Hard Brexit.

Only a minority expressed a preference for Brexit, and we know that some proportion of that cohort wanted a softer form of Brexit.

Anecdote isn't data, but of the people I know who were in favour of Brexit, it was something like a 1:2 split for "hard" vs "soft".

Indeed, which backs up my point. So anecdotally, perhaps 17-18% of those who voted wanted a Hard Brexit, which then translates to as little as 12% or so of the entire electorate. But, hey, Hard Brexit is "the will of the people" - well, 12% of them, at least

 

[deltic]

Cameron's unwillingness to allow Blue on Blue campaigning was undoubtedly a factor in a lacklustre remain campaign. He should have fired ministers who claimed Turkey was about to join the EU etc. His aim to reunite the Tory party failed as is evident 8 years later when they are as divided as ever.

 

[Enthusiast]

I disagree there. Radical change requires support from an absolute majority of the population to enact it,..

Well there was no absolute majority support when the UK joined the EEC in 1972. In fact there was no majority at all because the question was not put to the electorate. Similarly there was no majority when various Treaties were entered into by the government without reference to the electorate. All of these events were radical changes but it seems it was only the last radical change where an absolute majority support was deemed necessary. Even the 1975 referendum required no "super majority".

Which is where this started.

My statement was "most people did not vote for Brexit". No need to add in or include anyone else.

By implication you suggested that more people supported remaining that supported leaving. It is equally valid (or invalid, depending on your point of view) to say that "most people did not vote to remain." The bottom line is that those who didn't vote supported neither proposal and their apathy cannot be seen as support for one or the other.

In this instance I mean of those who voted. So of the 52% of the participants who voted Leave, I suspect that (much) less than 25 in 26 wanted a Hard Brexit.

So if the vote had been 52:48 to remain, would there have been a "soft Bremain"? If so, what form would that have taken? Would we, say, have remained members but left the Single Market and/or the Customs Union, or abandoned Freedom of Movement? If not, why should disappointed Leavers have been expected to endure a soft Brexit (i.e. Brexit which still left the UK enthralled to the EU and its institutions) when no such version of remaining would be on the table?

 

[dosxuk]

Just wondering how the Brexit supporters on here feel about today's news that the UK Government has offered the DUP a new rule which effectively sees us following all EU trade & produce rules going forwards, in order to reduce the risk of border issues between the UK & NI?

The Daily Telegraph has reported that the government is offering to introduce a new requirement that all new UK laws are "screened" to ensure they will not increase the impact of the sea border.
The newspaper said it would mean all legislation would have to accompanied by a ministerial statement confirming it did not have a "significant adverse impact" on internal UK trade.
Effectively, the government would choose to limit active divergence from the EU.

 

[najaB]

By implication you suggested that more people supported remaining that supported leaving.

I made no such implication. I said nothing about support.

Unless you hold that that 17,410,742 is more than 50% of 46,501,24 then it's correct to say that only a minority of the electorate voted in favour of Brexit.

Please do not put words into my mouth, thank you.

 

[AM9]

... the prime motivation of Brexit - more than anything else - was about power for the Conservative Party.

Which they will have quite a few years to rue their part in it. Once the hard right is flushed out, or even just muted, the one-nation Conservatives still participating in politics will have to start building a credible opposition.

 

[nw1]

So if the vote had been 52:48 to remain, would there have been a "soft Bremain"? If so, what form would that have taken?

I don't know, maybe try asking Cameron.

Would we, say, have remained members but left the Single Market and/or the Customs Union, or abandoned Freedom of Movement?

I doubt it. I suspect Cameron might have listened to the concerns of Leavers and taken them up with the EU, but there would not have been something as radical as that. And why should there be?

If not, why should disappointed Leavers have been expected to endure a soft Brexit (i.e. Brexit which still left the UK enthralled to the EU and its institutions) when no such version of remaining would be on the table?

You are assuming that all Leavers think/thought the way you do. From the discussion above, I doubt that was the case.

Implementing Hard Brexit is rather like implementing a Hard Left version of socialism if Labour win an election, using a rationale that it's "obvious" that a Labour vote is a vote for hardline socialism. "Why should disappointed hardline socialists have to be expected to endure a soft Labour government?"

 

[RT4038]

To be honest if it was left I suspect the issue would have faded away, particularly due to demographics (younger and middle-generation voters having grown up with the EEC and EU and thus seeing it as the "normal").

I suspect people would have eventually got bored with Farage ranting on about it. Every fashion has its day, and the anti-EU fashion probably peaked in the 2010s.

One factor also, of course, is I suspect a lot of people voted Brexit just to spite Cameron, remember this was fresh out of austerity and PigGate. This I suspect is where some, at least, of the non-Tory Leave vote came from. Still others may have had something of a problem with the EU, but wanted to retain its benefits (i.e a Norway solution). We will never know precisely how many people actually wanted a Hard Brexit in June 2016, because that question was not on the referendum, but I'd hazard a guess that only a minority did.

Bit of wishful thinking here, I think.

Cameron's unwillingness to allow Blue on Blue campaigning was undoubtedly a factor in a lacklustre remain campaign. He should have fired ministers who claimed Turkey was about to join the EU etc. His aim to reunite the Tory party failed as is evident 8 years later when they are as divided as ever.

Always trying to blame somebody! Where was the strong Remain campaign (from outside of the Conservative party) pointing out to the electorate the advantages of being in the EU and why the country should remain members? Nowhere. Where were the strong arguments to counter the Leave narrative? Nowhere.

Those who wished to remain were out manoeuvred and out argued by the the leave faction. I have no doubt about that, and all this blame game and trying to guess what people thought, afterwards, is a waste of time, and going to be argued about for the next 50+ years both on this forum and nationally ( A parallel being the 1923 referendum as to whether Rhodesia should join the Union of South Africa, and the result and arguments of that brought up frequently until overtaken by other events much later.) Brace yourselves for this thread to become of epic length. 'Anecdotally' is just too subjective with a likely bias towards own way of thinking to be of much use at all. My 'anecdotally' is that people are just getting on with their lives and are not getting themselves worked up with loss of EU membership at all.

Brexit is now done; the leave camp had only a short window of opportunity and they made it theirs. There will come a time (and I do not believe it is now or for quite some years yet) when the rejoiners will have a chance. I suspect that circumstances will be a lot different both here and in the EU by that stage.

Cameron for not stipulating that Brexit should require a convincing majority (e.g. 60% of vote, or >50% of the entire adult population) to be enacted.

I am guessing that you will be quite happy for this 'convincing majority' to be used for any 'rejoin' referendum? Or, perhaps not?

 

[Enthusiast]

Unless you hold that that 17,410,742 is more than 50% of 46,501,24 then it's correct to say that only a minority of the electorate voted in favour of Brexit.

No I don't hold that, any more than you would hold that 16,141,241 is more than 50%. It's equally correct to say that "only a minority of the electorate [and a smaller minority at that] voted in favour of remaining in the EU".

You said that "most people did not vote for Brexit". That is incorrect. In fact most people (30,360,000) did not vote to remain whilst only 29,090,499 did not vote to leave. If you are going to use the "did not votes" in your argument you cannot simply make that argument only one way to suit your position. There is no reason to assume, as you have done, that those who did not vote were happy with the status quo. If they wanted to remain and felt that strongly about it, they should have turned out and said so. The fact is that almost 13m didn't turn out at all and, although it doesn't matter, I would be far more inclined to believe that they were not bothered either way than I would to believe they were happy with the status quo. But there is nothing to justify that argument either way and to include the "did not votes" is simply a non-argument.

I doubt it. I suspect Cameron might have listened to the concerns of Leavers and taken them up with the EU,

Well he tried that once. He asked for next to nothing and came away with slightly less than that.

but there would not have been something as radical as that. And why should there be?

Because something equally as radical as that is exactly what was suggested in most versions of a "soft" Brexit. Most involved remaining to a greater or lesser degree in the EU's orbit, usually by staying in the Customs Union and/or Single Market. Of course the EU would have been most unlikely to agree to a "soft Bremain" - i.e. remaining in the EU whilst withdrawing from those institutions - for one simple reason: they are an intrinsic part of EU membership. So with that being so, why should the UK have considered leaving whilst remaining in them?

 

[Annetts key]

If the Conservatives had not held a referendum, does anyone here really think that UKIP would have won a general election?

My view is that Cameron thought that winning a referendum would put the issue to bed, bash UKIP, and hence improve the chances of Conservatives in areas where UKIP were challenging them. Although UKIP were unlikely to win in these places, they were reducing the majority in elections for some MPs.

 

[deltic]

Always trying to blame somebody! Where was the strong Remain campaign (from outside of the Conservative party) pointing out to the electorate the advantages of being in the EU and why the country should remain members? Nowhere. Where were the strong arguments to counter the Leave narrative? Nowhere.

Totally agree -

Those who wished to remain were out manoeuvred and out argued by the the leave faction. I have no doubt about that, and all this blame game and trying to guess what people thought, afterwards, is a waste of time, and going to be argued about for the next 50+ years both on this forum and nationally ( A parallel being the 1923 referendum as to whether Rhodesia should join the Union of South Africa, and the result and arguments of that brought up frequently until overtaken by other events much later.) Brace yourselves for this thread to become of epic length. 'Anecdotally' is just too subjective with a likely bias towards own way of thinking to be of much use at all. My 'anecdotally' is that people are just getting on with their lives and are not getting themselves worked up with loss of EU membership at all.

Agree - leave ran the far better campaign and saying if only X and Y were different is pretty pointless.

While people are just getting on with their lives there are real impacts - a large proportion of our graduates were EU nationals, recruiting now is more difficult so we are expanding our operations in the EU instead - tax revenue lost to the UK which people don't see but they do see slowly declining public services.

Brexit is now done; the leave camp had only a short window of opportunity and they made it theirs. There will come a time (and I do not believe it is now or for quite some years yet) when the rejoiners will have a chance. I suspect that circumstances will be a lot different both here and in the EU by that stage.

I cant see us ever rejoining, why would the EU accept us.

 

[westv]

Our leaving was a moment of sadness for the EU, not triumph so I dont doubt they would welcome us back if we ever choose that.

 

[najaB]

You said that "most people did not vote for Brexit". That is incorrect.

How many people were in the electorate at the time? Of those, how many actually cast a vote for Brexit?

You know the answer to both questions.

This discussion is done. Good day to you.

 

[Annetts key]

The EU would accept the UK back. Just as they accept other countries. And I don't think the UK would have much of a problem meeting the criteria to rejoin. The far, far bigger problem is that currently and for an unknown number of years, neither Labour or the Conservatives will go anywhere near the subject of rejoining. And the chances of a Liberal Democrat general election win are rather low.

 

[SteveM70]

Always trying to blame somebody! Where was the strong Remain campaign (from outside of the Conservative party) pointing out to the electorate the advantages of being in the EU and why the country should remain members? Nowhere. Where were the strong arguments to counter the Leave narrative? Nowhere.

The biggest weakness of the leave campaign from an organisational perspective was that it was a coalition from across the political spectrum, whereas leave was almost exclusively a right of centre movement

From a content perspective, the leave campaign was a lot easier in my opinion, because it could thrive as a purely negative campaign about the weaknesses (some true, some not true) of the EU, whilst they could offer vague promises of sunlit uplands in the future