EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[EM2]

How were we ever to know what a final Brexit deal was going to be unless we voted for it?

Here's a radical idea. You could actually give people concrete examples of what you expect will happen if you win.
For example:
We will no longer be members of the European Union. This will mean that there will no longer be freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital.
We will be free to repeal any or all legislation that we have made while members of the EU, which includes numerous workers rights and consumer rights.
We will leave the Euratom Treaty, which promotes nuclear safety standards, investment and research.
We will leave Europol that handles criminal intelligence and combating serious international organised crime by means of cooperation between the relevant authorities of the member states, including those tasked with customs, immigration services, border and financial police.
We will leave the European Convention on Human Rights (even though is nothing to do with the EU and we were one of the nations that founded it).

But what did we get? Nonsense about blue passports and lies about money for the NHS.

 

[me123]

How were we ever to know what a final Brexit deal was going to be unless we voted for it? We couldn't get any deal until we voted Leave, triggered article 50, then, and only then, does the EU rule book say we can start negotiating.

I defy anyone to have claimed that they could know what they were voting for when they voted leave. There were many contradictory statements made by those campaigning to leave, and I reckon any gullible person could be convinced to vote leave if they believed just one of the arguments.

Reasons to vote leave that I've heard from people (in person, online and reported) include:
- I wanted to take back power
- I'm tired of immigration
- I wanted £350M for the NHS
- I don't want Muslims in this country
- I wanted Nigel Farage to be Prime Minister
- I didn't want to leave the EU, I just wanted to protest against David Cameron
- The bananas in the shops are straight
- I disagree with the mandatory integration within Europe
- I don't want a European army
- I think we make a net loss through our EU membership
- I disagree with a specific European policy (this includes many things, but fishing is probably the most notable).

I'm not going argue about the merits or otherwise of these arguments; needless to say that there were good arguments and less good arguments. What strikes me is that this isn't a body of people who know what they're voting for - this is a collection of wildly different ideas, many of which have no relation to reality. You would of course find a variety of reasons to vote remain as well, but I'd reckon they were more coherent and unified. People voting to remain did so because of perceived benefits from EU membership.

Can we really say that the leave voters made an informed decision? I would say, on the whole, that they could not have - the leave campaign was full of utter lies, and ridiculous promises that clearly could not be fulfilled (mostly because the people making the arguments did not, and still do not have the power to implement the policies). Could I even say that voters from both sides could not make an informed decision - again, yes. Both campaigns were truly abysmal. The "remain" camp failed to make a compelling case for the EU, and failed to even attempt at explaining the role of the EU to the general public, many of whom only really understand the EU through the unbalanced eyes of the Express and Mail newspapers. The "leave" camp peddled a collection of contradictory statements and deliberate falsehoods, which have been extensively covered already. Throughout the whole debacle, the official opposition was engaged in a major skirmish as part of their ongoing civil war, hence contributing little of interest.

You are right in saying that we can not negotiate with the rest of the EU until Article 50 is triggered. That doesn't mean that we couldn't have formulated a plan or strategy in advance. As EM2 has pointed out above, some things could have been made clear from the outset. Membership of the common market and freedom of movement are two notable areas where people from the leave campaigns disagreed, but are actually exceptionally important. It is reasonable to assume that some people who voted leave would have wanted to stay in the single market, based on many statements from prominent leave campaigners stating that we could and would stay in the single market. We are now leaving the single market. It would not have been unrealistic to expect rational suggestions as to, at least, what we are going to aim for with the negotiations, and what we envision life outside the EU to be. We had none of the former, and no official position on the latter (although plenty of contradictory and mutually exclusive positions put forth by various people of varying relevance).

You have repeatedly stated that "it is simple". The problem is that is is not simple. Constitutional law is complex, and particularly so when it comes to the EU. Yet we made a decision based on simplistic arguments, and the decision was in itself simplistic and open to interpretation. To say that we are leaving the EU is as broad a statement as "we're going to fight crime". It doesn't explain exactly what is going to happen, how it's going to happen, or what the ultimate goal is.

By contrast, the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 did set forth a clear vision for the future should Scotland become an independent country. It wasn't guaranteed - after all, negotiations would be required with various bodies - but it was a realistic vision and a framework for the negotiations, set forth by people who would be involved in the negotiations and who have a reasonable understanding of what would need to happen. It was a proposal that was debated at length in the months running up to the referendum and, whilst it was rejected by the electorate, it was done so by a public who had had the opportunity to scrutinise become familiar with the proposal. Coming back to the EU referendum, nothing like that happened. No firm proposals were set forth, there was no real debate, there was no rational argument.

You can continue to call the decision simple, but to anyone who even begins to understand the complexities of constitutional law the decision is not simple. The fact that the leave camp won by a simple majority is not being argued (although the implications of the remain vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland complicate things). But we are now eight months on from a decision to leave the EU, and all we have is twelve meaningless statements from the government that provide only minimal clarity.

By calling it "simple", you demonstrate only that you fail to understand the issue.

 

[PhilipRhayader]

I'd like to see an even semi-coherent response to posts 5012 and 5013 from those who think leaving is so easy although I shan't be holding my breath.

 

[Trog]

By contrast, the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 did set forth a clear vision for the future should Scotland become an independent country. It wasn't guaranteed - after all, negotiations would be required with various bodies - but it was a realistic vision......

Sorry but the SNP vision seemed to be that everything would be wonderful and that Scotland would get everything it wanted, including using the pound regardless of the rest of the UK's agreement all to be paid for out of huge oil revenues. It may be a clear vision but it was totally unrealistic.

 

[backontrack]

Here's a radical idea. You could actually give people concrete examples of what you expect will happen if you win.
For example:
We will no longer be members of the European Union. This will mean that there will no longer be freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital.
We will be free to repeal any or all legislation that we have made while members of the EU, which includes numerous workers rights and consumer rights.
We will leave the Euratom Treaty, which promotes nuclear safety standards, investment and research.
We will leave Europol that handles criminal intelligence and combating serious international organised crime by means of cooperation between the relevant authorities of the member states, including those tasked with customs, immigration services, border and financial police.
We will leave the European Convention on Human Rights (even though is nothing to do with the EU and we were one of the nations that founded it).

But what did we get? Nonsense about blue passports and lies about money for the NHS.

Well, the Brexiteers have said time and time again that we can be like Switzerland. So, come on Theresa, it's time to start. Let's vote on the Brexit Deal.

 

[backontrack]

Sorry but the SNP vision seemed to be that everything would be wonderful and that Scotland would get everything it wanted, including using the pound regardless of the rest of the UK's agreement all to be paid for out of huge oil revenues. It may be a clear vision but it was totally unrealistic.

Scotland are still in the UK. So you have no proof.

 

[me123]

Sorry but the SNP vision seemed to be that everything would be wonderful and that Scotland would get everything it wanted, including using the pound regardless of the rest of the UK's agreement all to be paid for out of huge oil revenues. It may be a clear vision but it was totally unrealistic.

I do not wish to derail this topic into the world of Scottish Independence; I was merely looking at the parallels between the two referenda.

But I will say that I disagree with the statement that the vision was totally unrealistic. Of course Scotland could have continued to use the pound sterling - the rUK could never have stopped us from doing so. As an example, plenty of countries around the world use the US dollar without permission from the USA. Admittedly using the pound without the benefits of a central bank isn't a great solution, but no-one could do anything to stop it. As has been pointed out, Scotland rejected the proposal anyway so it all remains hypothetical.

My main point though, and hopefully one that we are in agreement with, was that the voters in the Scottish referendum had a good idea of what independence would entail, and a good idea of the government's vision. The reality may have worked out differently as a result of the need to negotiate, but there was a plan. Compare this to the EU referendum.

 

[Trog]

Scotland are still in the UK. So you have no proof.

1) Check current oil revenues.
2) Note that a lot of what oil revenues there are would not be Scotland's as a lot of the oil fields are either in English and Orkney/Shetland waters. (I believe that it is actually illegal for the Orkney and Shetland Island's to be come part of Scotland, should the Act of Union be repealed.)
3) If Scotland carried on using the same pound as the rest of the UK, that would mean that a large amount of their economic policy would be decided in London, which is a strange sort of independence.
4) Do you really think it is realistic to expect that absolutely everything would go Scotland's way which is what the SNP seemed to be suggesting.

 

[3141]

Reasons to vote leave that I've heard from people (in person, online and reported) include:

One remarkable reason was reported on the BBC News website. A young woman in London was concerned that the tax on tampons was decided in Brussels and we had to seek authority to vary it if we wanted it to be different here. She felt that such a tax should be decided here and not elsewhere, and therefore would vote to leave.

It was one of the more unusual reasons but quite understandable, because the issues were and are extremely complex and it's much easier to fasten on one factor and let that determine your position. This just confirms that a referendum was an inappropriate way to decide such an important question.

I'm not surprised, though, that it is taking so long to reach the point where negotiations can start. We've been in the EU for more than forty years. There is a huge number of situations that have developed and issues that need to be identified before we begin talking about what the future arrangements should be. Even then some things will get overlooked and after we've left there will be discrepancies. Also, we started with a lack of suitable negotiators. I'd rather the ground was well-prepared than hurry into negotiations just to get things moving.

 

[AlterEgo]

One remarkable reason was reported on the BBC News website. A young woman in London was concerned that the tax on tampons was decided in Brussels and we had to seek authority to vary it if we wanted it to be different here. She felt that such a tax should be decided here and not elsewhere, and therefore would vote to leave.

It was one of the more unusual reasons but quite understandable, because the issues were and are extremely complex and it's much easier to fasten on one factor and let that determine your position. This just confirms that a referendum was an inappropriate way to decide such an important question.

I'm not surprised, though, that it is taking so long to reach the point where negotiations can start. We've been in the EU for more than forty years. There is a huge number of situations that have developed and issues that need to be identified before we begin talking about what the future arrangements should be. Even then some things will get overlooked and after we've left there will be discrepancies. Also, we started with a lack of suitable negotiators. I'd rather the ground was well-prepared than hurry into negotiations just to get things moving.

Outstanding. Voting to leave the EU so a box on tampons becomes (less than!) 50p cheaper. I've heard it all now.

 

[Busaholic]

Well, the Brexiteers have said time and time again that we can be like Switzerland. So, come on Theresa, it's time to start. .

I've booked my room in the Hotel du Lac already, metaphorically speaking, and my travel pass valid on the railways, trams, trolleybuses, postbuses and funicular too. As you say, bring it on.

 

[Howardh]

I really do think we and the Republic should find out - from the EU commission and courts, what exactly the situation would be r/e the Irish border should we go down the no single-market and no customs union route.

If they say in order to maintain their position within the EU, borders for both goods and people must be installed then that would mean the end of the CTA; and in which case
(a) May either accepts it most likely against the will of the Irish (both south and north) and probably against the will of most of the rest of us
or
(b) go back to the country with a referendum - including the citizens of the Republic - with the question do we accept the loss of the CTA. If we do accept this as an (unintended?) concequence of Brexit, then fair enough, if we don't then we scrap Brexit and remain in the EU.

 

[miami]

Outstanding. Voting to leave the EU so a box on tampons becomes (less than!) 50p cheaper. I've heard it all now.

Failure of the UK media over the years to explain that the EU is a democracy. People vote in the EU elections but have no idea what their representatives do. It would have been trivial to get your democratically elected MEPs to lobby to allow tampons to be an exception to VAT. I doubt that the British population were the only people in Europe who disliked it.

(Although why there's no outrage over vat on soap, toothpaste, razors, etc is beyond me)

With a new EU trade deal, who knows what we'll have to agree to.

 

[AM9]

... Leave Won, Remain Lost. What else is there to argue over?

Words like this, often accompanied with something like: "why don't they stop listening to all the pro-EU losers and just do it" (as in leave)" is beginning to sound like panic. As the PM's cabal gets bogged down with the difficulties caused by their naïve optimism, the concept of 'Britain's best interests' will be quietly be dropped and replaced with a 'the EU were being unreasonable but we did as much as we could'.
There must be a lot of frustration in the leaver's camp.

 

[Trog]

(Although why there's no outrage over vat on soap, .... etc is beyond me)

They have got clean away with that one.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What is the point in having a referendum if the result isn't enacted?

Indeed, what was the point of it? I'd say it's a pretty stupid way of trying to make what is actually a highly technical decision because it's basically putting the decision in the hands of millions of people who, for the most part, do not have the time or the desire to acquire the expertise needed to make an informed judgement - and the completely predictable result was that the decision was mostly influenced, not so much by any reasoned consideration of what the effects of staying vs leaving would be, but mainly by a bunch of outright lies and misleading statements about the EU made by quite a few rather irresponsible politicians. It seems very obvious to many of us that the referendum was mainly held for the benefit of the Conservative Party: Because of a perception by the Conservative leadership that having a referendum might be a way round the longstanding splits on Europe within the Conservatives. Or, you might more cynically say, because David Cameron decided the interests of internal Conservative party politics was more important than seeking to Govern the country in the interests of the British people

So if you're suggesting that the referendum was pointless, then, yes, I'd probably agree with you. Maybe even, worse than pointless, since it now means, with the country apparently lead by politicians who are unwilling to stand up for what is right, the Government is now heading down a path that is going to be hugely damaging to the UK as a whole, and is likely to devastate the lives of - as a minimum - hundreds of thousands of people.

As for your killing all foreigners example, you use an extreme argument that would never happen. Do you really think the British public would vote for that - NEVER.

You're missing the point. Of course, in practice, it's very unlikely that a referendum on killing all foreigners in the country would pass today. Most people in the UK would rightly be utterly repelled by the idea. (But bear in mind, there are times in Britain/England's history when anti-foreigner sentiment was extremely high and it's quite plausible that such a referendum, if held, would have passed - so my example isn't historically as absurd as you might think.)

But the point is, my (hypothetical) example shows up the fallacy in your logic. You're saying, basically, that if something gets passed in a referendum then it must always be enacted. But what if, that thing that got passed, is actually discriminatory, or worse - (hypothetically) demands persecution of - a minority? That's roughly where we are because a hard Brexit is almost inevitably going to require discrimination against a minority of British residents. And that's wrong. It doesn't matter how big the majority is, discriminating against groups of people is wrong, and is not something that any responsible Government should be doing.

The bottom line is that, our being in the EU was hurting almost no-one. But leaving the EU is almost certain to devastate many, many people's lives (as well as leaving Britain poorer and with less influence in the World). I don't know you, so I don't know whether you care about other people's lives being devastated. But some of us do care about other people. And simply saying, people voted for it so therefore we have to go ahead [and devastate those lives] is just not morally right, and not good enough.

 

[dosxuk]

You're missing the point. Of course, in practice, it's very unlikely that a referendum on killing all foreigners in the country would pass today. Most people in the UK would rightly be utterly repelled by the idea.

I like to use the idea of a referendum on making Income Tax optional - it's an idea that would almost certainly get a "Yes, make it optional" result, but such a result would almost inevitably destroy the country. It serves as a good example of a question where the "individual" answer is at odds with the "state" answer, and is what we pay MPs to do - not just look at individual circumstances, but the bigger picture as well.

If you look at the Leave arguments, they were all aimed at the individual - you will be better off, you will have a wider choice of jobs, you will have better funded healthcare, you will benefit from a windfall of cash we don't have to send the EU. There was nothing coming from them about how as a country we will benefit.

 

[shakey1961]

Do I understand about devastated lives? How about undiagnosed Coeliac disease for 40 years? How about panic attacks for that length of time, resolved going gluten free? How about being unable to work for that time cos of doctors happy to just keep giving you sick notes and tablets? How about living in mouldy, freezing flats owned by scum private landlords? I live a devastated life every single effing day. I would love to have had a job, a trade, paid my taxes etc. So yes I do care about others lives being devastated, especially by Mr Cameron, the Tory government and the bedroom tax!!! Stigmatising the poor as work-shy scroungers. Robbing the poor to give to his rich banker friends. So don't have a go at me about not caring!!!

However, we had a democratic vote. One side won, we have to abide by the decision. Stop moaning trying to overturn it cos the minority lost!

Let's all work to make Brexit work, and work well for everyone. Yes, it's going to be a very bumpy road. All the Remainer's who said everything would be bad if we left, well look, the country hasn't ground to a halt yet, in fact we're doing much better than predicted.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, what was the point of it? I'd say it's a pretty stupid way of trying to make what is actually a highly technical decision because it's basically putting the decision in the hands of millions of people who, for the most part, do not have the time or the desire to acquire the expertise needed to make an informed judgement - and the completely predictable result was that the decision was mostly influenced, not so much by any reasoned consideration of what the effects of staying vs leaving would be, but mainly by a bunch of outright lies and misleading statements about the EU made by quite a few rather irresponsible politicians. It seems very obvious to many of us that the referendum was mainly held for the benefit of the Conservative Party: Because of a perception by the Conservative leadership that having a referendum might be a way round the longstanding splits on Europe within the Conservatives. Or, you might more cynically say, because David Cameron decided the interests of internal Conservative party politics was more important than seeking to Govern the country in the interests of the British people

So if you're suggesting that the referendum was pointless, then, yes, I'd probably agree with you. Maybe even, worse than pointless, since it now means, with the country apparently lead by politicians who are unwilling to stand up for what is right, the Government is now heading down a path that is going to be hugely damaging to the UK as a whole, and is likely to devastate the lives of - as a minimum - hundreds of thousands of people.



You're missing the point. Of course, in practice, it's very unlikely that a referendum on killing all foreigners in the country would pass today. Most people in the UK would rightly be utterly repelled by the idea. (But bear in mind, there are times in Britain/England's history when anti-foreigner sentiment was extremely high and it's quite plausible that such a referendum, if held, would have passed - so my example isn't historically as absurd as you might think.)

But the point is, my (hypothetical) example shows up the fallacy in your logic. You're saying, basically, that if something gets passed in a referendum then it must always be enacted. But what if, that thing that got passed, is actually discriminatory, or worse - (hypothetically) demands persecution of - a minority? That's roughly where we are because a hard Brexit is almost inevitably going to require discrimination against a minority of British residents. And that's wrong. It doesn't matter how big the majority is, discriminating against groups of people is wrong, and is not something that any responsible Government should be doing.

The bottom line is that, our being in the EU was hurting almost no-one. But leaving the EU is almost certain to devastate many, many people's lives (as well as leaving Britain poorer and with less influence in the World). I don't know you, so I don't know whether you care about other people's lives being devastated. But some of us do care about other people. And simply saying, people voted for it so therefore we have to go ahead [and devastate those lives] is just not morally right, and not good enough.

The bottom line is that this Country has already made a verbal commitment to enable settled European residents to stay after the country leaves the EU in return for a reciprocal arrangement for British nationals in Europe. What would be morally right would be for the 27 members to come to that agreement.

And don't give me any nonsense about how they can't do anything until Article 50 has been invoked, because the 27 have already met to consider the UK's disengagement.

 

[PhilipRhayader]

Let's all work to make Brexit work, and work well for everyone. Yes, it's going to be a very bumpy road. All the Remainer's who said everything would be bad if we left, well look, the country hasn't ground to a halt yet, in fact we're doing much better than predicted.

We haven't actually left yet.

 

[Howardh]

We haven't actually left yet.

Exactly, and all the good figures (inflation still under control, unemployment falling etc etc) are gonna have to be bettered or at least maintained after Brexit, which I doubt will happen. We're setting the bar high, and Remainshire will be declaring with a top score behind them

If the figures do down after Brexit, it will be anything but the fault of Brexit as a Brexiter will never, ever admit they're wrong. It will be the fault of bad negotiations, bad deals, an unhelpful EU, Japan not wanting our fairy cakes

Go on then - prove the bit in italics is wrong!!

 

[me123]

If the figures do down after Brexit, it will be anything but the fault of Brexit as a Brexiter will never, ever admit they're wrong. It will be the fault of bad negotiations, bad deals, an unhelpful EU, Japan not wanting our fairy cakes

Or just good old fashioned "fake news".

 

[miami]

I like to use the idea of a referendum on making Income Tax optional - it's an idea that would almost certainly get a "Yes, make it optional" result, but such a result would almost inevitably destroy the country.

Depends how the taxes are raised. If it were replaced with a land value tax for example it might work. It might not.

However these are complex issues, which is why we pay people to spend time to make the calls. We call them members of parliament. You don't get heart surgery from a bloke down the pub, nor do you get economic advice. At least in a sane world.

 

[Howardh]

Or just good old fashioned "fake news".

Yes, I forgot to mention that!! "Sorry, we are gonna have to let you go, here's your P45"
"Nah, mate, that's fake..."

 

[shakey1961]

We haven't actually left yet.

Yes I know we haven't left yet, stop splitting hairs, you know and fully understand what I mean.

 

[EM2]

So yes I do care about others lives being devastated, especially by Mr Cameron, the Tory government and the bedroom tax!!! Stigmatising the poor as work-shy scroungers. Robbing the poor to give to his rich banker friends. So don't have a go at me about not caring!!!

Do you think this will change after the UK leaves the EU? If so, what is it that makes you think that will happen?

 

[furnessvale]

We haven't actually left yet.

Lots of bad things were predicted by the remain side which were supposed to occur the day after the vote, but they didn't happen. That is what is being referred to.

As for what will happen in the future, it is all guesswork from both sides. The last people to listen to are the so called economists.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Yes I know we haven't left yet, stop splitting hairs, you know and fully understand what I mean.

I see you've managed to avoid answering the responses to your "get on with it" Leavamoaning statement around 5012 and 5013.

It seems like the others who have disappeared on here (probably mucking in and getting on with it...) you have no thoughts to back up your rhetoric.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I like to use the idea of a referendum on making Income Tax optional - it's an idea that would almost certainly get a "Yes, make it optional" result, but such a result would almost inevitably destroy the country. It serves as a good example of a question where the "individual" answer is at odds with the "state" answer, and is what we pay MPs to do - not just look at individual circumstances, but the bigger picture as well.

On a similar testing of opinion of the general public by referendum, how do you feel that the matter of the reinstatement of the death penalty would fare in such a referendum?

 

[Howardh]

Lots of bad things were predicted by the remain side which were supposed to occur the day after the vote, but they didn't happen. .

Well for starters the Pound dropped making the cost of imports, fuel (bought wholesale in dollars), holidays and such like more expensive. Of course the Pound goes up and down normally, but that was a significant and almost immediate response to the Brexit vote.

I do agree that there was a load of nonsense about the economy crumbling the Day After - anyone saying that should have remembered that it's years before Brexit and we can still carry on trading as before in the meantime.

Now, whether the economy crashes in the months after Brexit we will have to wait and see - but if it does, will Brexiters accept the blame?