• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Brexit matters

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Except that ratification is being withheld by the EU while the Northern Ireland situation remains at an impasse.
Those sneaky EU bureaucrats. Imagine the nerve of refusing to ratify an international agreement, just because we're threatening to break the previous international agreement.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
The oven ready deal that Boris got done and then told the Daily Express yesterday that the new PM will need to, erm, get Brexit finished.

So, it wasn't done. Who knew!
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,044
Location
Birmingham
The oven ready deal that Boris got done and then told the Daily Express yesterday that the new PM will need to, erm, get Brexit finished.

So, it wasn't done. Who knew!

Because of the evil REMOANERS of course, who use their mind control rays or something.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
Will continue here from points made (OT) on other threads.

Firstly, apparently we enjoyed freedom of movement since 1973, according to a post on another thread, so the current setup is not just the least freedom since 1992 (as I had thought), but actually since 1972. 50 years. Not good. Think about that: freedom of movement was introduced when the Mid Hants line was still open to regular passengers; a long time ago.

Thus really, if we're talking about modern times from the 1970s onwards, it's the current setup which is "odd", not the previous freedom of movement setup.

Secondly, Remainer-bashers forget one thing. I suspect many Remainers would be happy with a Brexit which preserved freedom of movement and the customs/trade union, certainly I would. Often discussing "democracy" when it comes to the referendum, they forget that a 52% Brexit result is not a strong and clear majority for Brexit, but a very narrow one. Thus, a soft Brexit would be the most representative result, followed by a "Remain but accounting for the concerns of Brexiters". Hard Brexit in no way reflects the marginal result.

Another reason why I am thoroughly inspired by the shower currently standing in the Tory leadership contest. I can understand that (to appeal to the blue rinse lot) none of them will wish to publicly state that they wish to repair relations with the EU, but of the five, only Tugendhat, in my opinion, might privately want that.

So I just hope we get a change of government soon, as it seems the Tory Party is incapable of a change of direction. While I accept it will take a few years to change things, I would hope that, while not actually re-joining the EU, the UK and EU will at some point agree that freedom of movement wasn't actually such a bad thing after all and surely 1973-2019 is more representative of modern times than 1972 or before.

I do agree that at the moment, while the Brexit cult still has adherents, politicians need to be a bit quiet and non-committal on the matter though.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Secondly, Remainer-bashers forget one thing. I suspect many Remainers would be happy with a Brexit which preserved freedom of movement and the customs/trade union, certainly I would.
As someone who voted Remain and would more likely than not vote to re-join in a future plebiscite, I wouldn't say that I'd be happy with the 'soft Brexit' that was offered, but I would certainly prefer it to the current situation.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,289
Location
Up the creek
I make no bones about being a Remainer and consider Brexit to be a disaster, but I accept that it has happened and feel that the government should try make it work to the best interests of the country. Despite Ukraine, the cost of living crisis, global warming, etc., our relationship with our main trading partners and nearest neighbours is of vital importance to the future of this country. Instead of sitting down and negotiating in sensible, if possibly hard-headed, fashion, the current lot seems to be hell-bent on a policy of stunts, finger-pointing, and deliberately uncooperative and provocative behaviour, presumably to divert attention from their domestic problems and errors, and to rally the faithful.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
I make no bones about being a Remainer and consider Brexit to be a disaster, but I accept that it has happened and feel that the government should try make it work to the best interests of the country. Despite Ukraine, the cost of living crisis, global warming, etc., our relationship with our main trading partners and nearest neighbours is of vital importance to the future of this country. Instead of sitting down and negotiating in sensible, if possibly hard-headed, fashion, the current lot seems to be hell-bent on a policy of stunts, finger-pointing, and deliberately uncooperative and provocative behaviour, presumably to divert attention from their domestic problems and errors, and to rally the faithful.

I do agree with this to a large extent. It's difficult to completely cancel Brexit, but what we can do is work to minimise/undo the damage.

We should work (appreciating this may take a few years) towards restoring some form of freedom of movement and closer, less bureaucratic trade.

It will still be Brexit so the Brexiters cannot whinge "but we voted 10 years ago to leave yada yada", but it means we will not be so isolated.

The ragbag of Tory candidates do not seem to want to do this, but obviously if they actually do, they will not broadcast it as it won't get them votes. I guess people like Sunak are a bit unknown in this respect, but I think on balance only a change of government will allow us to start the repair process.

The Government should really be acting like any Government that has screwed up and annoyed their neighbours. Minimise the damage, don't increase it further. I hate to think of what people like Truss and Badenoch might do, but thankfully I think the first would lose against Labour and the second will not make the final two.

As I said above, 1973 is a long time ago and being in the single market has, until very recently, been a fact of modern Britain. Even in the years immediately before that, we were working towards being in the single market (wasn't it 1967, a key year for those with liberal attitudes, when we started the process?)
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I'd say Mordaunt, Truss and Badenoch actually want to inflict more damage on the country in the cause of Brexit, Tugenhat and probably Sunak don't but know it would be fatal to their chances if they said so.

Even if we had a government tomorrow that was committed to it, re-joining would be a multi-year if not a multi-decade project. We should be seeking to re-build relations and links with the EU, mitigating the short-term damage and may end up in a Norway-type relationship which might command majority support now people have seen the alternative. It could also be the start of the road back in if a future government and population came to that view.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Several people I one who have held anti EU views for a number of years put the argument as "we voted to join the EEC not the EU" and that was the most common thing I heard.

As such I suspect that many would have been happy to have gone back to that of that were possible.

Even if that wasn't the mainly held view of those who voted leave, you would need many who did gold that view to get to 50%+1 who are now in a position where they've not for what they voted for.
 

REVUpminster

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2021
Messages
734
Location
Paignton
I think Brexiteers wanted a tier of government removed and the civil service that went with it. Do we need four and five levels of government all needing taxation to pay for them.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Firstly, apparently we enjoyed freedom of movement since 1973, according to a post on another thread, so the current setup is not just the least freedom since 1992 (as I had thought), but actually since 1972. 50 years. Not good. Think about that: freedom of movement was introduced when the Mid Hants line was still open to regular passengers; a long time ago.

I think my reaction to that is, so what? Just because a particular freedom existed for a long time doesn't by itself mean it's an intrinsically good freedom or that it has to exist forever more. A more pertinent question is, are there sufficiently good reasons why you should preserve that particular freedom? You seem to regard EU freedom of movement as an absolute good, but in reality, it was something that had both advantages and disadvantages.

Secondly, Remainer-bashers forget one thing. I suspect many Remainers would be happy with a Brexit which preserved freedom of movement and the customs/trade union, certainly I would.

Probably many remainers would have been happy with it, but I doubt many people who voted Brexit would've been. As I recall, the issue of Freedom of Movement was widely cited as one of the big drivers behind the Brexit vote in the referendum. Any Brexit that preserved freedom of movement would very likely have caused large numbers of (maybe even, most) people who voted Brexit to feel utterly betrayed, and that their vote had been ignored.

I do agree that at the moment, while the Brexit cult still has adherents, politicians need to be a bit quiet and non-committal on the matter though.

The Brexit cult? That's pretty loaded, and rather insulting, language. Would you be happy if those who supported Brexit started referring to your views as the Remainer cult?

I'd say Mordaunt, Truss and Badenoch actually want to inflict more damage on the country in the cause of Brexit, Tugenhat and probably Sunak don't but know it would be fatal to their chances if they said so.

Oh rubbish! You can be pretty certain that none of them want to (deliberately) inflict damage on the country. Do you seriously imagine that they are going around thinking, 'I really want to harm the UK. What's the best way to achieve that?' Rather, they disagree with you about what things are likely to help the country. Clearly, you disagree with them about whether Brexit is, on balance helpful or harmful, and that's a reasonable point to debate. But it's not at all the same thing as them wanting to harm the country
 
Last edited:

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,908
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
The Remoaners seem to forget that it takes 2 to tango. Following a fractious divorce, there is now real loathing for Perfidious Albion in EU political circles, particularly from its leading countries France and Germany. Macron and his acolytes have at times sounded positively hostile; there is no longer an Entente Cordiale. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect relations between the EU and the UK to sweeten any time soon. The UK needs to prioritise improving relations with other leading states, so really shouldn't be taking the lead in being hostile to countries such as China/India/Iran/Russia/Turkey etc., however unpalatable they may be.
 
Last edited:

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,743
Location
Cheshunt
The Remoaners seem to forget that it takes 2 to tango. Following a fractious divorce, there is now real loathing for Perfidious Albion in EU political circles, particularly from its leading countries France and Germany. Macron and his acolytes have at times sounded positively hostile. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect relations between the EU and the UK to sweeten any time soon. The UK needs to prioritise improving relations with other leading states, so really shouldn't be taking the lead in being hostile to countries such as China/India/Iran/Russia/Turkey etc.
China, Russia…….cracking
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
I think my reaction to that is, so what? Just because a particular freedom existed for a long time doesn't by itself mean it's an intrinsically good freedom or that it has to exist forever more. A more pertinent question is, are there sufficiently good reasons why you should preserve that particular freedom? You seem to regard EU freedom of movement as an absolute good, but in reality, it was something that had both advantages and disadvantages.



Probably many remainers would have been happy with it, but I doubt many people who voted Brexit would've been. As I recall, the issue of Freedom of Movement was widely cited as one of the big drivers behind the Brexit vote in the referendum. Any Brexit that preserved freedom of movement would very likely have caused large numbers of (maybe even, most) people who voted Brexit to feel utterly betrayed, and that their vote had been ignored.



The Brexit cult? That's pretty loaded, and rather insulting, language. Would you be happy if those who supported Brexit started referring to your views as the Remainer cult?



Oh rubbish! You can be pretty certain that none of them want to (deliberately) inflict damage on the country. Do you seriously imagine that they are going around thinking, 'I really want to harm the UK. What's the best way to achieve that?' Rather, they disagree with you about what things are likely to help the country. Clearly, you disagree with them about whether Brexit is, on balance helpful or harmful, and that's a reasonable point to debate. But it's not at all the same thing as them wanting to harm the country

Whilst you may well be right in freedom of movement (although you'd only need about 4% of those who voted leave to have still wanted it for the result to have been a reverse, i.e. 48:52, in favour of retaining freedom of movement), however what about the point I made about remaining in the EEC, as it's likely that would have had a larger level of support within those who voted leave:

Several people I one who have held anti EU views for a number of years put the argument as "we voted to join the EEC not the EU" and that was the most common thing I heard.

As such I suspect that many would have been happy to have gone back to that of that were possible.

Even if that wasn't the mainly held view of those who voted leave, you would need many who did gold that view to get to 50%+1 who are now in a position where they've not for what they voted for.

There above point is something that those who favour the current Brexit position appear to want to ignore as it doesn't suit their narrative of Leave won; so we can do what we like in regards to Brexit as everyone who voted leave wants this and anything less that total Brixit is just something that only remainers want.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
The Remoaners seem to forget that it takes 2 to tango.

Can we not debate the issue without hurling insults at the other side? You may well have had a good point to make, but as soon as I saw your first two words, I lost interest in reading the rest of your post. You disagree with remainers - fine. But why not just refer to them as what they are - Remainers? And then argue against them based on the issues?

Whilst you may well be right in freedom of movement (although you'd only need about 4% of those who voted leave to have still wanted it for the result to have been a reverse, i.e. 48:52, in favour of retaining freedom of movement), however what about the point I made about remaining in the EEC, as it's likely that would have had a larger level of support within those who voted leave:

That depends on how many who voted Remain strongly believed in Freedom of Movement. I personally voted Remain, and indeed very strongly believed in remaining despite having come to the conclusion that freedom of movement, in the particular form the EU does it, was on balance a bad thing: So you can't assume that everyone who voted Remain strongly believed in Freedom of movement.

(Events since 2016 have lead to me changing my views somewhat: These days, I see the EU as a noble idea that has gone badly wrong, and I would probably not vote to rejoin. I feel that we've left, endured a large upheaval to leave, and now the best option is to make the most of life outside the EU).
 
Last edited:

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,908
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Can we not debate the issue without hurling insults at the other side? You may well have had a good point to make, but as soon as I saw your first two words, I lost interest in reading the rest of your post. You disagree with remainers - fine. But why not just refer to them as what they are - Remainers? And then argue against them based on the issues?
It was fair to describe people as Remainers until the UK had actually left the EU, but many individuals who wished to remain (e.g @nw1) persist in moaning about a decision that was implemented over 2 years ago, instead of accepting it and moving on.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
It was fair to describe people as Remainers until the UK had actually left the EU, but many individuals who wished to remain (e.g @nw1) persist in moaning about a decision that was implemented over 2 years ago, instead of accepting it and moving on.

@daodao But if you look at my message, I explicitly said it would be difficult to rejoin or something of that nature. I wasn't actually suggesting rejoining (although if the EU would accept us right now, I would). I thought my position was a very middle-of-the-road one.

I was suggesting restoring such things as freedom of movement and free trade, and also accepting this might take quite a while to implement, due to the now-strained relations between the UK and EU, and the need to move on from the Johnson years.

I do not see why I and others of my view should have to accept the suspension of rights we had held since 1973, without complaining. Remember also that the referendum never asked whether we should revoke freedom of movement rights. It never asked whether we should leave the single market. These were things done, by the UK government, without consulting us.

I take it you do not plan to attempt to emigrate to Continental Europe at some point? If so I suspect you would have a very different view. Try to be considerate of those who have had rights they have had since the 1970s (a long time) suspended. Many of us, including those of us now in mid-life, cannot even remember the time before 1973.

A situation where we still have Brexit, but have our rights at least partially restored, would be a good compromise and would not pretend that people who wish to restore good relations with EU countries do not exist.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The Brexit cult? That's pretty loaded, and rather insulting, language. Would you be happy if those who supported Brexit started referring to your views as the Remainer cult?

Oh rubbish! You can be pretty certain that none of them want to (deliberately) inflict damage on the country. Do you seriously imagine that they are going around thinking, 'I really want to harm the UK. What's the best way to achieve that?' Rather, they disagree with you about what things are likely to help the country. Clearly, you disagree with them about whether Brexit is, on balance helpful or harmful, and that's a reasonable point to debate. But it's not at all the same thing as them wanting to harm the country
Not deliberately, but due to some combination of ignorance, stupidity, and venality. As far as I'm concerned politicians ought to inform themselves about the facts that support (or not) their views and policy proposals. I just don't see how anyone in possession of those facts and a reasonable intellect could support the harder and harder Brexit position being pushed by the louder voices in the Tory party. In all its years of running I haven't seen a single convincing argument that Brexit will help the prosperity of the UK. Therefore, I consider any politician that supports it is either badly informed about the facts, too stupid to interpret them, or supports the policy for reasons of personal advancement instead of the benefit to the country. And because there is no rational reason to support Brexit, I consider the use of the word "cult" to be entirely appropriate. Remaining or rejoining isn't a cult because there are plenty of good arguments to support it.

Please note I don't apply the same logic to the general public. A con trick should be blamed on the perpetrator not the victim.
The Remoaners seem to forget that it takes 2 to tango. Following a fractious divorce, there is now real loathing for Perfidious Albion in EU political circles, particularly from its leading countries France and Germany. Macron and his acolytes have at times sounded positively hostile; there is no longer an Entente Cordiale. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect relations between the EU and the UK to sweeten any time soon. The UK needs to prioritise improving relations with other leading states, so really shouldn't be taking the lead in being hostile to countries such as China/India/Iran/Russia/Turkey etc., however unpalatable they may be.
Leaving aside the gratuitous insult, I actually agree with the first part of this. The Brexit faction is busy burning bridges with our logical allies and trading partners, and the longer that goes on the longer it will take to re-build them. But the lesson of Ukraine is that we must stand with the Western democracies, not to have our only "friends" being authoritarian leaders who are driven by self-interest if they are rational at all.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
The Remoaners seem to forget that it takes 2 to tango. Following a fractious divorce, there is now real loathing for Perfidious Albion in EU political circles, particularly from its leading countries France and Germany. Macron and his acolytes have at times sounded positively hostile; there is no longer an Entente Cordiale. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect relations between the EU and the UK to sweeten any time soon.
Is this actually the case? Do France and Germany actually hate us?
If they do right now, I suspect it's only because the Johnson government has wound them up.

If the UK government starts having a positive attitude to the EU (whether via a new Tory or via Labour) then maybe the EU will follow likewise.
The UK needs to prioritise improving relations with other leading states, so really shouldn't be taking the lead in being hostile to countries such as China/India/Iran/Russia/Turkey etc., however unpalatable they may be.

So the UK should have good relations with the likes of Xi (a monstrous authoritarian tyrant), Modi (who mistreats those of other religions), Erdogan (an aggressive and unpleasant imperialist tyrant) and Putin (what can I say), rather than the EU?

No, we should have good relations with the EU and be harsh and firm on nasty pieces of work like these four.

Things can change. If relations between countries are bad right now (and I am afraid I blame the governments of Johnson, and, to a lesser extent, May) it does not mean that they will always be. Countries can make up. And, as they started the quarrel, the onus is firmly on the UK Government to make the first steps.

We should absolutely not just accept that the UK and modern democracies within the EU should have bad relations forever more, and continuously bring up outdated, anachronistic phrases from some bygone era such as "Perfidious Albion". We should absolutely not be in a race to the bottom and count vile people like Erdogan, Xi and Putin as our "friends". Things can change, but it sometimes seems that Brexiters don't want things to change in a desperate attempt to believe they won the argument, when, given the bad effects of Brexit, it's clear they didn't.

Germany were, for obvious reasons, the pariah of Europe if not the world between 1939 and 1945. Once the war had been won, did we continue to make Germany a pariah? Or did we recognise that the regime which had caused the monstrous acts of evil had fallen and it was time to re-admit Germany to the club of civilised countries? If the western world could forgive Germany for the monstrosities of WWII, then EU countries can certainly forgive the UK for its much, much smaller intransigence.

The Brexit cult? That's pretty loaded, and rather insulting, language. Would you be happy if those who supported Brexit started referring to your views as the Remainer cult?
It's because, to me, it seems Brexit, or hard Brexit at least, just causes difficulties. The suspension of rights we have had for 47 years is a pretty big deal, IMO. The strained relations between UK and EU governments is a big deal. Trade bureaucracy, which meant I was without my main computer for two months last summer while waiting for parts from Germany, is causing many people difficulties. I referred to it that way because, rather like an actual cult, it seems to me that Hard Brexit is something that many people believe in almost just because they believe in it, rather than for any really good reasons. I will admit I have been particularly irked in recent days (and therefore more likely to use provocative language) by the discovery that freedom of movement existed from 1973, not 1993 as I had thought - which makes the whole situation so much worse.

When asked why, in my experience, people justify it with unconvincing arguments about "sovereignty" (which can be countered with the fact that non-Tories will have endured the Tories being in power for 71% of the 1979-2024 period) or even "we won, get over it" (which can be counter-argued with the question "why hard Brexit, in that case?"). I have yet to hear anyone make a really convincing argument for Hard Brexit. To me Hard Brexit has caused nothing but restrictions and difficulties, and only a fool, or someone who is profiting from it at the expense of everyone else, would support it.

I ask again: I take it no Hard Brexit supporter ever plans to emigrate to the EU or to Schengen countries?
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Not deliberately, but due to some combination of ignorance, stupidity, and venality. As far as I'm concerned politicians ought to inform themselves about the facts that support (or not) their views and policy proposals. I just don't see how anyone in possession of those facts and a reasonable intellect could support the harder and harder Brexit position being pushed by the louder voices in the Tory party.

I think you're making the mistake of confusing 'I don't agree with the arguments on the other side' with 'people on the other side must be stupid/acting in bad faith'

Therefore, I consider any politician that supports it is either badly informed about the facts, too stupid to interpret them, or supports the policy for reasons of personal advancement instead of the benefit to the country. And because there is no rational reason to support Brexit,

Really? I find that surprising because I can think of many rational reasons why people might support Brexit. Off the top of my head, rational arguments include...
  1. Freedom of movement was (allegedly) dragging down wages, putting too much pressure on our infrastructure, and making it impossible for the Government to predict population numbers and so plan apporpriate infrastructure for the future.
  2. EU regulations were (allegedly) harming business and competitiveness by putting too much regulatory burden on companies.
  3. EU farming/food production regulations and subsidies were (allegedly) harming the environment.
  4. It was discriminatory that people from EU countries could freely come to the UK but people from non-EU countries couldn't - and the immigration pressures caused by EU freedom of movement were making it politically impossible to ease visa rules for non-EU countries.
  5. The EU had (allegedly) made too much Government too remote from the population - more local Government can be more responsive and more alert to the needs of its people.
  6. The particular bureaucratic / political structure of the EU was making essential reform too difficult.
  7. Restoring rules to Westminster could (allegedly) make it easier to reform/change regulation so we could be more responsive to changing circumstances.
  8. A stable, cohesive, society requires Government to be at a level/cover an area that most people feel a strong attachment and sense of loyalty to. Most people feel that sense of loyalty to the UK in a way that people don't feel to the same extent towards the EU (speaking generally of course, obviously there are exceptions). That suggests we should be keeping Government within the UK.
There does seem some irony that i the same post you criticise other people for 'ignorance, stupidity, and venality', before a few sentences further on, admitting your own ignorance about the existence of rational arguments for Brexit!

(NB: Before you reply to disagree with some of those arguments: Remember, I'm not claiming that there aren't counter-arguments. Of course there were many rational arguments for Remain as well. And it's in the nature of politics that there are usually good arguments on both sides, and that it's pretty much always possible to pick holes in any argument. The point is that what I've cited are rational arguments for Brexit, which many people found/still find strongly persuasive).
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
I think my reaction to that is, so what? Just because a particular freedom existed for a long time doesn't by itself mean it's an intrinsically good freedom or that it has to exist forever more. A more pertinent question is, are there sufficiently good reasons why you should preserve that particular freedom? You seem to regard EU freedom of movement as an absolute good, but in reality, it was something that had both advantages and disadvantages.
Because it's the norm for modern times and because most of us, alive now, are used to this freedom as a norm. Many of us, probably most of us alive now, were either too young, or not even born, to remember the era before 1973. Even someone who turns 60 this year would have been a pre-teenager in 1973 and thus likely not old enough to care either way about the EEC.

I will admit I have a strong philosophical belief in freedom and progress as ideas (in other areas too, outside politics), and dislike (often intensely) anything which reduces or suspends freedom which has become normalised. 47 years is a long time, and enough for that freedom to become normalised in this way.

I'd react similarly strongly if, say, some farmers' and landowners' group managed to convince the Government that the public using footpaths across their fields was causing damage, and the Government thus decided to close all public footpaths in the countryside away from certain "honeypot" areas. If such an action occurred (which to my mind is similar to Brexit, in that it can be justified by some, albeit with weak arguments, but suspends long-held freedoms) then I would be complaining about it every bit as strongly as I do for Brexit.

Or, more controversially, I would be similarly up in arms if a government decided to make alcohol an illegal drug, justifying it by strain on the NHS or similar arguments.
Probably many remainers would have been happy with it, but I doubt many people who voted Brexit would've been. As I recall, the issue of Freedom of Movement was widely cited as one of the big drivers behind the Brexit vote in the referendum. Any Brexit that preserved freedom of movement would very likely have caused large numbers of (maybe even, most) people who voted Brexit to feel utterly betrayed, and that their vote had been ignored.
That is just presumption. The main moral argument Brexiters make is that their percentage in the referendum was higher than that of Remainers. But the referendum only asked "should we leave the EU?".

If we left the EU and retained freedom of movement, Brexiters really would have had no moral right to complain. And the marginal lead for Brexit in the referendum morally, to my mind, suggests a very soft Brexit anyhow. A hard Brexit, given that result, is enough to make Remainers feel their views have been ignored. Why is it OK to have a hard Brexit on a narrow lead for the Brexiters, and not OK to preserve freedom of movement?

Several people I one who have held anti EU views for a number of years put the argument as "we voted to join the EEC not the EU" and that was the most common thing I heard.

As such I suspect that many would have been happy to have gone back to that of that were possible.

Even if that wasn't the mainly held view of those who voted leave, you would need many who did gold that view to get to 50%+1 who are now in a position where they've not for what they voted for.
That's the point. As I've said several times, I would have been quite happy to revert to the 1973-92 norm. That would be a good compromise.

Many Brexiters constantly bring up the referendum to justify what has happened. But how would they react if a second question was asked: "If Leave obtains more than 50%, should we also leave the single market and suspend freedom of movement?".

I suspect that most Remainers would answer No to the second question, and a good number of "soft" Brexiters (who maybe bring up the 'sovereignty' arguments but do not have an attitude towards free trade or movement).

To me, these restrictions should only have been brought in if either a) Leave scored at least 60%, i.e. a clear majority or b) >50% voted Yes in this second question.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Because it's the norm for modern times and because most of us, alive now, are used to this freedom as a norm. Many of us, probably most of us alive now, were either too young, or not even born, to remember the era before 1973. Even someone who turns 60 this year would have been a pre-teenager in 1973 and thus likely not old enough to care either way about the EEC.

I will admit I have a strong philosophical belief in freedom and progress as ideas (in other areas too, outside politics), and dislike (often intensely) anything which reduces or suspends freedom which has become normalised. 47 years is a long time, and enough for that freedom to become normalised in this way.

So if I've understood your argument correctly, you're saying that if a freedom has existed for a long time, then it should carry on, and it's wrong to then restrict that freedom?

How about these freedoms, which I believe have all been to some extent lost during the last 50 years after many years (in some cases, centuries) of people having those freedoms as absolute rights...?
  1. The freedom to own any dog of any breed that you wish?
  2. The freedom, once you own your dog, to allow it poo in any outdoor public location without having to do anything afterwards?
  3. The freedom to own certain types of gun?
  4. The freedom to drive without wearing a seatbelt?
  5. The freedom to drive at up to 30mph in almost any residential area? (Still possible in lots of places, but increasingly being restricted).
  6. The freedom to smoke almost anywhere?
 

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
1,106
Really? I find that surprising because I can think of many rational reasons why people might support Brexit. Off the top of my head, rational arguments include...
  1. Freedom of movement was (allegedly) dragging down wages, putting too much pressure on our infrastructure, and making it impossible for the Government to predict population numbers and so plan apporpriate infrastructure for the future.
  2. EU regulations were (allegedly) harming business and competitiveness by putting too much regulatory burden on companies.
  3. EU farming/food production regulations and subsidies were (allegedly) harming the environment.
  4. It was discriminatory that people from EU countries could freely come to the UK but people from non-EU countries couldn't - and the immigration pressures caused by EU freedom of movement were making it politically impossible to ease visa rules for non-EU countries.
  5. The EU had (allegedly) made too much Government too remote from the population - more local Government can be more responsive and more alert to the needs of its people.
  6. The particular bureaucratic / political structure of the EU was making essential reform too difficult.
  7. Restoring rules to Westminster could (allegedly) make it easier to reform/change regulation so we could be more responsive to changing circumstances.
  8. A stable, cohesive, society requires Government to be at a level/cover an area that most people feel a strong attachment and sense of loyalty to. Most people feel that sense of loyalty to the UK in a way that people don't feel to the same extent towards the EU (speaking generally of course, obviously there are exceptions). That suggests we should be keeping Government within the UK.
There does seem some irony that i the same post you criticise other people for 'ignorance, stupidity, and venality', before a few sentences further on, admitting your own ignorance about the existence of rational arguments for Brexit!

(NB: Before you reply to disagree with some of those arguments: Remember, I'm not claiming that there aren't counter-arguments. Of course there were many rational arguments for Remain as well. And it's in the nature of politics that there are usually good arguments on both sides, and that it's pretty much always possible to pick holes in any argument. The point is that what I've cited are rational arguments for Brexit, which many people found/still find strongly persuasive).

Most of these are purely based on a claim that is only "allegedly" true, so can be discounted unless those claims are actually supported by evidence.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Any Brexit that preserved freedom of movement would very likely have caused large numbers of (maybe even, most) people who voted Brexit to feel utterly betrayed, and that their vote had been ignored.
Of the people I know who voted Leave, only about half listed Freedom of Movement as a main reason for their vote.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
Of the people I know who voted Leave, only about half listed Freedom of Movement as a main reason for their vote.

During the campaigning, a lot of the leave side was insisting we'd still have some form of trade deal/customs union. I also think a fair few people expected to keep their freedom of movement to the EU if not the other way around. Having your cake and eating it and all that.

If just a few per cent of leave voters wanted to keep freedom of movement then suddenly that means that the majority of voters wanted to keep it. It's fair to say the 48% who voted remain certainly wanted to keep it.

Given there were SO many Brexit options, and no two people would likely agree on what type of Brexit they actually wanted (don't forget, a lot simply said just leave right now, no withdrawal agreement or discussions, and tell them to sod off if they ask for any outstanding payments), it is mad that the people weren't given a second referendum to get the Brexit deal they wanted.

Most Brexit voters aren't happy now, and Boris is saying the next PM needs to sort it. Therefore, Brexit didn't get done. There was no oven ready deal. The current deal is unworkable.

So, who exactly is happy at this point in time?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Most of these are purely based on a claim that is only "allegedly" true, so can be discounted unless those claims are actually supported by evidence.

The point is that they are direct arguments for Brexit that many people find persuasive, and so amount to direct counter-examples to the claim that was made in this thread that there are no rational arguments for Brexit. I'm actually very confident that there is substantial (although not necessarily incontrovertible) evidence for most/all of the ones I cited, but I said 'allegedly' just to (pedantically) cover if there was any doubt.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Oh rubbish! You can be pretty certain that none of them want to (deliberately) inflict damage on the country. Do you seriously imagine that they are going around thinking, 'I really want to harm the UK. What's the best way to achieve that?'
Badenoch and Truss specifically, probably not, but the likes of JRM have made a lot of money due to the poor performance of the pound since Brexit. It would be naïve at best to believe that their actions and choices would have been 100% motivated by what is best for the country, given that they stood to personally gain from the country doing badly.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
2,976
Location
London
It's bizarre that a country that is so culturally similar to the UK can have such a different view on the EU. Euroscepticism is very rare in Ireland. I presume quite a few British citizens have now lived in Ireland long enough to start the process of becoming Irish citizens after moving there in 2016.
 

Top