Brexit matters

[radamfi]

Ireland went through decades of grinding poverty after they became an independent nation. Personally, I'm not convinced it's worth the risk, as far as Scotland were concerned.

Scotland wasn't lied to. It's true that there were serious potential issues around an independent Scotland joining the EU, and UK government policy throughout Cameron's government was continued EU membership. Cameron fully expected Remain to win the EU referendum by a substantial margin. He was an idiot for gambling our future on it, but leaving the EU only became government policy after the referendum. It certainly wasn't government policy in 2014. No-one expected the Tories to win a majority in 2015 either.

They had to find a way of keeping Scotland in the EU to keep their 2014 promise.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Good grief. I've never read such a massive pile of nonsense in my life. If you think this is some glorious "power to the people" revolution, you're in for a shock.

The people who promoted Brexit and got us to this point don't care about you at all.

Actually, he's not half wrong. The "two classes" explanation for Brexit was what was made in the great book "The Road to Somewhere" which explains the referendum result. The idea of this upper class intermarriaging carries some merit, as recent studies show that remainers are something like, 10% more unlikely than Brexiteers them than a Brexiteer and a Remainer. This is what creates the so called "metropolitan bubble" people complain about. I've seen it with my own eyes, but you only have to read remainers' reaction to Brexit in 2016-"I thought everyone thought like me" etc etc.

And as I said, Labour and Conservatives have shown they don't care about Brexiteer communities either-so what's to lose? Your probably right that Mogg and Cummings don't care about the everyday Brexiteers. But I think the decision against the EU was made decades ago, it just needed the formal referendum-proberbly didn't matter who promoted it.

 

[XAM2175]

not only do some Scots see destroying the UK as price for EU membership

The counterpoint to this is the polling in November 2019 that indicates a significant proportion of leave voters viewing the breakup of the UK as a price worth paying for leaving the EU:

Breakup of UK a price worth paying for Brexit, say Leave voters in poll

Sky News travels to the four parts of the United Kingdom to gauge its fragility as a Brexit-dominated election approaches.

news.sky.com

Leave voters were asked if they thought Scotland becoming independent would be a price worth paying for delivering Brexit - 41% said yes, while only 18% said no.
...
Leave voters were also asked if Welsh independence would be a price worth paying for delivering Brexit. While 28% said yes, 26% said no. British Leave voters were also asked if Northern Ireland joining the Republic of Ireland would be a price worth paying for Brexit. While 25% said yes, 19% said no.

Dear Mr Farage said as much himself in July 2019:

Farage says Brexit is more important than keeping the UK from splitting apart

Brexit Party leader says he has 'had enough' of 'threats' that Scotland could become independent if UK leaves EU without a deal

www.independent.co.uk

The break-up of the United Kingdom would be "deeply regrettable" but a price worth paying to deliver Brexit, Nigel Farage has said.
...
On Thursday, Ms May will warn Mr Hunt and his rival to be prime minister, Boris Johnson, that one of the "first and greatest" duties of the next prime minister must be strengthening the union. But Mr Farage insisted that Brexit should be the "number one" priority - even if it means the UK breaking up.

Scotland wasn't lied to. ... Cameron fully expected Remain to win the EU referendum by a substantial margin. He was an idiot for gambling our future on it, but leaving the EU only became government policy after the referendum. It certainly wasn't government policy in 2014.

It was his government that told Scottish voters that remaining in the UK was the only way to assuredly remain in the EU, and it was his government that made holding the EU referendum policy, and it was his party's government that has then proceeded to deliver the referendum's result with barely any regard for either the 2014 assurance or the 2016 remain majority in Scotland.

Combined now with extra-hard Brexit and the sections of the Internal Market Bill that open the devolution settlement up to being overridden at the whim of ministers I'm not surprised in the slightest that the increasingly-common view in Scotland is that independence from Westminster is desirable and that the breakup of the UK is an unfortunate but necessary part of that process.

 

[Journeyman]

It was his government that told Scottish voters that remaining in the UK was the only way to assuredly remain in the EU, and it was his government that made holding the EU referendum policy, and it was his party's government that has then proceeded to deliver the referendum's result with barely any regard for either the 2014 assurance or the 2016 remain majority in Scotland.

Combined now with extra-hard Brexit and the sections of the Internal Market Bill that open the devolution settlement up to being overridden at the whim of ministers I'm not surprised in the slightest that the increasingly-common view in Scotland is that independence from Westminster is desirable and that the breakup of the UK is an unfortunate but necessary part of that process.

Whilst this is all true, and Cameron was a terrible PM who has left an extremely toxic legacy, it was still his intention to remain in 2014, and he expected remain to win the EU referendum.

He was reckless, incompetent and extremely stupid, but on this particular issue, he wasn't dishonest.

 

[najaB]

He was reckless, incompetent and extremely stupid, but on this particular issue, he wasn't dishonest.

With respect, he was.

The position of his government (and as the leader, his position) was that a No vote was the only guarantee of remaining in the EU. Yet he specifically declined to ask the EU for an opinion on what the prospect was of an independent Scotland remaining a member, and he must've know (or at least suspected) that an EU referendum was on the cards.

The lie was in the guarantee.

 

[Journeyman]

With respect, he was.

The position of his government (and as the leader, his position) was that a No vote was the only guarantee of remaining in the EU. Yet he specifically declined to ask the EU for an opinion on what the prospect was of an independent Scotland remaining a member, and he must've know (or at least suspected) that an EU referendum was on the cards.

The lie was in the guarantee.

The guarantee was, I think, foolish rather than deliberately dishonest. And, just in case anyone thinks I'm defending him, I hope there's a special place in Hell for David Cameron.

 

[najaB]

The guarantee was, I think, foolish rather than deliberately dishonest. And, just in case anyone thinks I'm defending him, I hope there's a special place in Hell for David Cameron.

If he had even an inkling that an in/out referendum was on the cards it was a lie. It might not have been told with malice, but it would still be a lie.

 

[21C101]

Actually, he's not half wrong. The "two classes" explanation for Brexit was what was made in the great book "The Road to Somewhere" which explains the referendum result. The idea of this upper class intermarriaging carries some merit, as recent studies show that remainers are something like, 10% more unlikely than Brexiteers them than a Brexiteer and a Remainer. This is what creates the so called "metropolitan bubble" people complain about. I've seen it with my own eyes, but you only have to read remainers' reaction to Brexit in 2016-"I thought everyone thought like me" etc etc.

And as I said, Labour and Conservatives have shown they don't care about Brexiteer communities either-so what's to lose? Your probably right that Mogg and Cummings don't care about the everyday Brexiteers. But I think the decision against the EU was made decades ago, it just needed the formal referendum-proberbly didn't matter who promoted it.

As I said above Grammar school abolition and the end of National service were a big factor in the UK.

Grammar schools because no more could someone from a poor background get a top education and enter the "elite". That bacame limited to those who could afford to pay for private education or afford to live in the catchment areas of the minority of comprehensives that more resemble grammer schools than secondary moderns.

National service. Although the middle to upper classes tended to be officers they still spent two years working with, living with (occasionally dying with) and leading the concilliation grades. This bought understanding and some empathy and mutual respect of each others values.

Now the chasm goes ever wider. A good example was the Farage v Clegg debate before the referendum. The good and great immediately proclaimed a comprehensive victory for Clegg and were shocked when opinion polls and interviews etc revealed the man on the street thought exactly the opposite.

Older examples are Dads Army and Red Dwarf, the pilots of which were panned by critics and invited audiences but exceeded all expectations when aired.

 

[radamfi]

Brits want an unprecedented access to the single market and not adhere to the rules the other 27 countries with such access to the market have to adhere to. That was never going to fly and will never fly; either UK sticks to EU's rules or they don't get access. Seeing how they still have not walked away after over 4 years should tell you not only who has the power in the negotiation but who's desperate to get a deal. No deal will bring pain but the pain is very much at different levels between the parties and even Boris knows this.

Education is a big factor here. The over 60s typically are poorly educated compared to the under 30s. Educated people will naturally have a less insular view on life and politics.

 

[21C101]

If he had even an inkling that an in/out referendum was on the cards it was a lie. It might not have been told with malice, but it would still be a lie.

Of course he did. It was a manifesto commitment in the 2015 election, albeit one he never expected to follow through with as they expected a further 5 yeara coalition with the Lib Dems. Neither Lib Dems or Tory realised the extent to which the Libdem vote was a proxy Labour vote and that the inevitable result of the coalition would be that labour voters would stay at home or return to labour, unwinding the tactical voting that had allowed the Libdems to win the seat off the tories in the first place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2020 ==

Brits want an unprecedented access to the single market and not adhere to the rules the other 27 countries with such access to the market have to adhere to. That was never going to fly and will never fly; either UK sticks to EU's rules or they don't get access. Seeing how they still have not walked away after over 4 years should tell you not only who has the power in the negotiation but who's desperate to get a deal. No deal will bring pain but the pain is very much at different levels between the parties and even Boris knows this.

Sorry but that is rubbish. The UK government is asking for what Canada already has.

No government of a state bigger than Lichenstein, other than one defeated in war would agree things like dynamic equivalence i.e. the UK being forced to adopt new EU laws even for domestic matters. We are not a protectorate.

They still don't get the Iron Law of Brexit. Every attrmpt to reverse or water down the referendum backfires and results in a harder Brexit.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am not sure if the matter I have in mind has already been raised on this thread, but some UK manufacturers rely on "Just in time" products used in their production lines that eminate from the EU countries.

 

[radamfi]

Sorry but that is rubbish. The UK government is asking for what Canada already has.

How far is Canada from the EU? How far is the UK from the EU? Surely this has relevance?

 

[21C101]

How far is Canada from the EU? How far is the UK from the EU? Surely this has relevance?

By your logic then Canada should be forced to accept US labour laws in order to have a trade agreement with them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2020 ==

I am not sure if the matter I have in mind has already been raised on this thread, but some UK manufacturers rely on "Just in time" products used in their production lines that eminate from the EU countries.

Coronavirus has already highlighted the folly of such practices.

 

[radamfi]

By your logic then Canada should be forced to accept US labour laws in order to have a trade agreement with them.

Which country has better access to the US market than Canada? It is about being fair to the other European countries who play by the rules. Even Switzerland and Norway have agreed with the level playing field.

 

[Senex]

Sorry but that is rubbish. The UK government is asking for what Canada already has.

And the EU has explained at length and ad nauseam why that is not possible.

 

[radamfi]

The fact that the UK still hasn't decided that it is Australian/no deal shows who holds the aces in the discussion. The EU will suffer with no deal but nothing like the UK. Lots of people used to say that the German car manufacturers et al would ensure the UK gets what it wants. Nobody is saying that now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2020 ==

In case people still want to compare Canada with the UK's situation. Even Canada has to satisfy certain aspects of the level playing field:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cwp-20200218-trade-geography_en_0.pdf

 

[najaB]

The UK government is asking for what Canada already has.

The UK is not Canada. Surely even the most ardent Brexit supporter can see that?

 

[radamfi]

Why would the countries of the EU deliberately put themselves at a disadvantage by giving the UK preferential treatment?

 

[najaB]

Having originally offered it to May in 2018 and advised her to persue instead of her chequers plan.

Yes. They suggested using the Canada deal as the basis for the negotiations. Which isn't the same thing as saying that we would get exactly the same deal as Canada.

 

[37424]

Yes. They suggested using the Canada deal as the basis for the negotiations. Which isn't the same thing as saying that we would get exactly the same deal as Canada.

Indeed and In fact you look at EEA members and the fact they accept freedom of movement as part of their single market access which we are not accepting, what the EU are proposing doesn't actually seem that bad to me but with some compromise on fish, but of course the Brexiteers want to have their cake and eat it.

 

[edwin_m]

I see what you are saying, but I can say with some certainty that the New Labour ideals of globalism was whole-heartedly embraced in London in the 90s-2000s. I.e "manufacturing is old hat", "buy off the world not buy British" mantra which guts the life out of communities across the UK. Sure, the Tories did too, but after 13 years of New Labour they were as complicit. Manufacturing, like fishing, seems to have been caught up in this identity war we are now seeing. Adopting a pro-manufacturing, pro-export stance usually has tinges of protectionism and thus nationalism, so the left nowadays generally avoids this and by proxy embraces Thatcherite neoliberalism at least because its "global". Even now, I remember reading when Starmer was elected leader that Labour members were dismayed that Starmer was going to go for the red wall seats again which would inevitably lose the metropolitainism of Labour during the Corbyn years.

I did some research into New Labour's levelling up and to be honest it was a bit lame. Their basic premise was that devolution would provide economic growth for the regions which failed at the first hurdle without any back up plan. Their "industrial policy" was overwhelmingly skewed towards defence, pharmaceuticals and generic R&D while leaving all other manufacturing sectors to decline. This was partly because New Labour was obsessed with image and worried that if they were stupid enough to talk about supporting the British steel industry, they would suddenly be seen as Trots and the Tories would sweep into power-which of course would not have been what happened. Regions such as the West Midlands and North East grew at nearly half the pace that London did throughout Blair's premiership. Wales grew poorly as well, which suggests devolution wouldn't have made much difference to England had the regional assemblies been established.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the 1970s but "Buy British" was a big thing, and the consequences probably best symbolised by the cars produced by British Leyland, all pretty awful to various degrees and not having a hope of being competitive with the quality of imports (especially Japanese). The BL plants were also some of the worst examples of the over-mightiness of trade unions in that era.

Thatcher changed all that, and to be honest much of what she did in the early years needed doing. And you're right that New Labour didn't dare to challenge what had by 1997 become political orthodoxy - as I said previously the elections of 1983, 1987 and 1991 showed what would happen if they tried (I consider an unfair electoral system is a big part of the UK's problems). Perhaps I'm biased by what I saw as a child in the 70s but I don't think a return to protection of domestic industry is the way forward, and even today I think a return to "Buy British" would be laughed out of court. Nissan and Toyota have demonstrated that good cars can be built well in Britain, this now being at risk because of reduced access to global markets and international production lines.

Protectionist policies, along with explicit financial support, don't really provide a firm foundation for prosperous business. There is always the risk of them being taken away due to change of government or change of policy (perhaps even because it's seen as being too successful), in which case an intrinsically uncompetitive business will go under sooner or later anyway. There may be a role in the short term, such as the subsidies to solar power now phased out, but my belief is that the government can help business better by providing the conditions that encourage success. This includes things like good transport infrastructure, an educated workforce and - yes - a consistent and sensible approach to international trade which doesn't cripple industries that are trying to export.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2020 ==

Indeed and In fact you look at EEA members and the fact they accept freedom of movement as part of their single market access which we are not accepting, what the EU are proposing don't actually seem that bad to me but with some compromise on fish, but of course the Brexiteers want to have their cake and eat it.

That would be a fishcake then.

 

[21C101]

Seems the Remainers have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

I quote Peter Mandelson who, whatever you think of him, was an able politician.

[Hard Brexit is the] ‘price the rest of us in the pro-EU camp will pay for trying, in the years following 2016, to reverse the referendum decision rather than achieve the least damaging form of Brexit’

 

[alex397]

Seems the Remainers have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

I quote Peter Mandelson who, whatever you think of him, was an able politician.

[Hard Brexit is the] ‘price the rest of us in the pro-EU camp will pay for trying, in the years following 2016, to reverse the referendum decision rather than achieve the least damaging form of Brexit’

I wouldn’t assume all Remainers want to rejoin the EU (although I probably would support that), I get the impression that many Remainers just want a good deal so we can move on.
And getting a good deal would have been a better compromise than a hard Brexit and no deal. The government seems to forget that 49% of voters wanted to Remain, and seems to just be appealing to Brexiteers which probably isn’t wise if they want to reduce division. With almost half of voters wanting to Remain, it would surely be obvious to a competent government that compromises would have to be made.
It’s almost as if it is part of a plan to increase division.

 

[nlogax]

Seems the Remainers have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

I quote Peter Mandelson who, whatever you think of him, was an able politician.

[Hard Brexit is the] ‘price the rest of us in the pro-EU camp will pay for trying, in the years following 2016, to reverse the referendum decision rather than achieve the least damaging form of Brexit’

Seems you've not read all the pages of this thread.

 

[Vespa]

Seems the Remainers have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

I quote Peter Mandelson who, whatever you think of him, was an able politician.

[Hard Brexit is the] ‘price the rest of us in the pro-EU camp will pay for trying, in the years following 2016, to reverse the referendum decision rather than achieve the least damaging form of Brexit’

I have followed the whole saga, instead of working with result, Remain instead decided to try and reverse the referendum result with court cases, parliamentary road blocks, any dirty tricks they can think of, without considering the other side's case instead they are focusing on their own needs and priorities, engaging in their own lies and propaganda that they accuse Brexiters of doing, this has caused massive problems with our negotiations with the EU, weakening our position, they would be willing to wreck the British position to prove a point, the bitterness, sarcasm, trying to drown out Brexiters opinions in an avalanche of unconstructive criticism seems to be the weapon used, reasoned debates is not possible in the face of it.

Democracy is important to this country, that to subvert it in order to impose a loser's agenda makes a mockery of it.

What would be the point of a referendum if it's not acted on in good faith.

Whether anyone agree with the result or not, the people have spoken, never more clearly than the last general election with an 80 seat majority for Brexit, in truth no one knows how it will turn out, predictions are merely estimates, projections, fantasies up to the hysterical.

I do know one thing, after we joined the EEC in 1973 WITHOUT a referendum, food prices went up because of a common custom regime, the Common Agricultural Policy is a money pit that benefitted French farmers who see no need for reform, wasteful butter mountain, wine lakes, artificially raising prices for the internal market, corruption is widespread, our laws were subverted in favour of EU law which is actually illegal as parliament derives consent from the people for which they haven't given a referendum to join the EU, this was done without the permission of the people, the referendum of 1975 was done with promise that the failings of the EEC will be addressed, as history has shown it wasn't and is still a problem now.

To me Brexit is more than pure economics, it's about parliamentary soverignity, who decides how Britain govern for its people, our right to decide for ourselves without reference to 27 other countries, who fishes our waters, decide our trade policy and partner.

Our workers rights have already been enshrined in UK law long before we joined the EEC and others afterward is written in the statute books, they are not going to disappear overnight as soon as we leave, theres is a very good chance we will leave in a very hard Brexit because the EU believe they hold the cards because of the infighting, they even "offered" us 18% of OUR fishing water in exchange for a deal, it is an insult, it's deeply disrespectful and impossible to accept, they would only do that if they believe our position is very weak, I would rather have no deal than servitude on such terms.....

 

[birchesgreen]

I wouldn’t assume all Remainers want to rejoin the EU (although I probably would support that), I get the impression that many Remainers just want a good deal so we can move on.
And getting a good deal would have been a better compromise than a hard Brexit and no deal. The government seems to forget that 49% of voters wanted to Remain, and seems to just be appealing to Brexiteers which probably isn’t wise if they want to reduce division. With almost half of voters wanting to Remain, it would surely be obvious to a competent government that compromises would have to be made.
It’s almost as if it is part of a plan to increase division.

Yes i'd be very happy with EFTA / Norway. To be honest if that had been the option on the ballot i probably would have voted leave as, while i like the EU, i don't think we should be in it half-heartedly. As it was i suspected it would be a complete balls up so voted remain...

 

[21C101]

I have followed the whole saga, instead of working with result, Remain instead decided to try and reverse the referendum result with court cases, parliamentary road blocks, any dirty tricks they can think of, without considering the other side's case instead they are focusing on their own needs and priorities, engaging in their own lies and propaganda that they accuse Brexiters of doing, this has caused massive problems with our negotiations with the EU, weakening our position, they would be willing to wreck the British position to prove a point, the bitterness, sarcasm, trying to drown out Brexiters opinions in an avalanche of unconstructive criticism seems to be the weapon used, reasoned debates is not possible in the face of it.

Democracy is important to this country, that to subvert it in order to impose a loser's agenda makes a mockery of it.

What would be the point of a referendum if it's not acted on in good faith.

Whether anyone agree with the result or not, the people have spoken, never more clearly than the last general election with an 80 seat majority for Brexit, in truth no one knows how it will turn out, predictions are merely estimates, projections, fantasies up to the hysterical.

I do know one thing, after we joined the EEC in 1973 WITHOUT a referendum, food prices went up because of a common custom regime, the Common Agricultural Policy is a money pit that benefitted French farmers who see no need for reform, wasteful butter mountain, wine lakes, artificially raising prices for the internal market, corruption is widespread, our laws were subverted in favour of EU law which is actually illegal as parliament derives consent from the people for which they haven't given a referendum to join the EU, this was done without the permission of the people, the referendum of 1975 was done with promise that the failings of the EEC will be addressed, as history has shown it wasn't and is still a problem now.

To me Brexit is more than pure economics, it's about parliamentary soverignity, who decides how Britain govern for its people, our right to decide for ourselves without reference to 27 other countries, who fishes our waters, decide our trade policy and partner.

Our workers rights have already been enshrined in UK law long before we joined the EEC and others afterward is written in the statute books, they are not going to disappear overnight as soon as we leave, theres is a very good chance we will leave in a very hard Brexit because the EU believe they hold the cards because of the infighting, they even "offered" us 18% of OUR fishing water in exchange for a deal, it is an insult, it's deeply disrespectful and impossible to accept, they would only do that if they believe our position is very weak, I would rather have no deal than servitude on such terms.....

Hear hear. The remainer responses to my recent posts here chime with what you say in you first paragraph.

Ironic that the papers are this evening trying to incite panic buying over no deal now. After this year my reaction is a shrug, again? meh.

The little covid virus has rather done for project fear.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2020 ==

Yes i'd be very happy with EFTA / Norway. To be honest if that had been the option on the ballot i probably would have voted leave as, while i like the EU, i don't think we should be in it half-heartedly. As it was i suspected it would be a complete balls up so voted remain...

I too would have gone along with that. Alas the useless Mrs May thought the only thing that mattered was immigration.

 

[najaB]

I do know one thing, after we joined the EEC in 1973...

47 years ago...

 

[Journeyman]

47 years ago...

It's crazy that anyone thinks what was relevant then will somehow be relevant now.

 

[Vespa]

It's crazy that anyone thinks what was relevant then will somehow be relevant now.

That's because nothing's changed.