European Union Referendum

[silkyman]

I've seen plenty of people doing that, pointing at what Cameron and Osbourne said to counteract the lies from the leave lot.

You can't use the oppositions argument to justify your own actions. You just can't.

It's like Theresa May beating Corbyn to a general election and privatising the NHS the next day. Then pointing across to Corbyn and saying 'you should have listened to him then, shouldn't you' when anyone dared to complain.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I've seen plenty of people doing that, pointing at what Cameron and Osbourne said to counteract the lies from the leave lot. You can't use the oppositions argument to justify your own actions. You just can't.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

The EU and the single market are closely related but essentially different things, as should be clear from the example of the EFTA countries (outside the EU but participating in the single market through the EEA agreement). The referendum question didn’t take account of this; there was nothing on the ballot paper about the single market.

By and large, both sides chose to ignore this nuance and argued their case presupposing single market withdrawal. The government certainly did. At times the Remain campaign seemed to consist of nothing more than Dave and Gideon’s economic doom-mongering, all of which was predicated on the belief that Britain would leave the single market.

There was a bit more variety in the Leave camp, with most presupposing single market withdrawal but others being more equivocal and fudgy because they didn’t want to rule out Norway-type options (EFTA/EEA). If the Remain campaign hadn’t been utterly useless, it would have focused attention on this inconsistency and hammered Leave for not having a consistently articulated exit plan. Instead they continued to bludgeon the public with warnings of economic Armageddon, again using arguments that presupposed withdrawal from the single market.

Mowgli’s point, I think, is that single market withdrawal (or “Hard Brexit” in Remainer speak) shouldn’t come as a surprise to voters who were repeatedly told by the two most senior people in government that that’s what Brexit would entail. One could add to this that, though there was inconsistency in the Leave camp, the general case for Brexit (with the “Take Back Control” slogan at its centre) assumed single market withdrawal. You can’t, for example, take back control of immigration if you stay in the single market because freedom of movement is one of the four freedoms of the EEA agreement.

People ought to be warier about this Soft Brexit vs. Hard Brexit stuff, because it’s mostly a post-referendum invention by the side that lost. Soft Brexit (i.e. a Norway type arrangement in which we continue to participate in the single market) was barely discussed during the campaign. On the contrary, the leading figures on both sides studiously avoided discussing it. Remain avoided it because it didn’t suit their message of possible economic disaster. Leave avoided it because Soft Brexit wouldn’t allow the government to control intra-European migration. Consequently, very few would have voted in the referendum thinking a Leave win would mean Soft Brexit. What Remainers now call Hard Brexit is actually just Brexit – the Brexit that both sides imagined and presented when fighting the campaign. It’s been re-labelled Hard Brexit because it’s politically expedient, because it helps sulky Remainers create the impression that Mrs May is driving through a constitutional change that is much more radical than what people thought they were voting for. It’s poppycock. Self-serving revisionism via language games.

NOTE: I edited the last paragraph in response to Veggie's valid criticism. The original is quoted in his post.

 

[Benji]

Cameron repeatedly said if we voted to leave The EU we would have to leave the single market and so did Osbourne.

They never put it on a bus though.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

What? I'm as Brexit as they come. Minor point of economic policy it may be but it creates snappy headlines that would sit well with the 48% that voted remain. It's politics, the idea is to smear your opponent.

I doubt you really believe that. If you do, it casts your habitual moaning about Corbyn’s lousy treatment (be it by the press, opposing parties or his enemies in the PLP) in a very odd light.

There’s certainly more to politics than mud-slinging when dealing with something as seismic as Brexit. At the moment debate about Brexit needs to focus on the process, on the best way to get it done. Things like VAT and NHS funding are questions of domestic policy. I’m not suggesting these be put on hold until Brexit is achieved; on the contrary, I think they’re ongoing debates that Labour should be at the centre of. But there’s a time and place, isn’t there? The recent parliamentary debate on Brexit was not it. What you suggested (see post 2706) is silly six-former politics. It would make the Labour Party look like petty amateurs who don’t appreciate the magnitude of the situation.

The £350m claim is strongly associated to leave therefor it's the perfect opportunity to throw mud at the people presiding over leave and since when has mud had to be true for it to stick in politics?

While the £350m pledge is associated with the Leave campaign, Mrs May is not. I think most people – Leave or Remain, Tory or non-Tory – understand she’s inherited a very challenging situation, one largely created by others. It’s a strange, dissatisfying situation for many reasons, but one that gives her a certain amount of leeway. Your suggestion is to take bad Vote Leave arguments and re-imagine them as promises made by someone (May) who had nothing to do with Vote Leave. That’s idiotic and very easily countered. Mud-slinging is only effective if people think it's a fair cop.

Making brexit work as you put it isn't giving carte blanche for Teresa May to do whatever she wants.

Agreed. Parliament’s role is to scrutinise the process of withdrawal. The opposition has an important role in that respect. My point was not that Labour should blindly acquiesce to whatever Mrs May wants; it was that criticisms of the Brexit process/plan ought to be focused on the Brexit process/plan. What you suggested was something quite different, namely using an important constitutional debate to indulge in cheap grandstanding.

Anyway, we now seem to agree Jez was right to avoid that approach, so it’s all good.

 

[Veggie Legs]

People ought to be warier about this Soft Brexit vs. Hard Brexit stuff, because it’s mostly a post-referendum invention by the side that lost. Soft Brexit (i.e. a Norway type arrangement in which we continue to participate in the single market) was not discussed during the campaign. On the contrary, the leading figures on both sides studiously avoided discussing it. Remain avoided it because it didn’t suit their message of possible economic disaster. Leave mostly avoided it because Soft Brexit wouldn’t allow the government to control intra-European migration. Consequently, virtually no one voted in the referendum thinking Soft Brexit was an option. What Remainers now call Hard Brexit is actually just Brexit – the Brexit that both sides imagined and presented when fighting the campaign. It’s been re-labelled Hard Brexit because it’s politically expedient, because it helps sulky Remainers create the impression that Mrs May is driving through a constitutional change that is much more radical than what people thought they were voting for. It’s poppycock. Self-serving revisionism via language games.

While I agree with the majority of your post, I think there's a leap of logic here. I heard plenty of talk of Norway style arrangements, maybe not from the campaign leaders but certainly from voters. I'm fairly confident there will be such points made in this thread, although I'm not trawling through to find them.

Also, wasn't it Theresa May who first talked about 'hard Brexit'?

 

[Alty]

While I agree with the majority of your post, I think there's a leap of logic here. I heard plenty of talk of Norway style arrangements, maybe not from the campaign leaders but certainly from voters. I'm fairly confident there will be such points made in this thread, although I'm not trawling through to find them.

Also, wasn't it Theresa May who first talked about 'hard Brexit'?

You only tended to hear it as a throwaway when people claimed leaving would lead to economic oblivion, though. I don't know many - if any - people who wanted to leave in order to secure a Norway-esque deal.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Veggie Legs
Aye, I could have phrased that part better. It was a four-month campaign with millions of participants. No doubt half-in/half-out options (e.g. Norway) were discussed by some people at some point. The intended point was that they didn't feature very prominently. Apologies for not making that clearer.

I have no idea if May coined the term Hard Brexit. I am, however, confident that this Hard vs. Soft distinction came to prominence after the referendum. I would also respectfully suggest that its exact origins matter rather less than what it's being used for.

 

[sl1k]

Politicians are always trying to cash in whatever political capital they think they could claim entitlement to though innit. Just the nature of party politics.

For me the problem lies therein where, the referendum was more an obligation that came to be via promises made by people who hadn't even considered the reality of keeping them. When it turned out that this had to be a real thing and not just politicking, they rushed out with a false sense of security/confidence [in the status quo] - that a brexit just wouldn't/couldn't materialise. And when it did it was like an earthquake that nobody was prepared for - Hard vs Soft brexit talk being the [valid] aftershocks. It's an inevitable consequence of poor planning, disconnection with - or contempt for - the concerns/feelings of the people and being too busy shooting hoops with each other.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

And when it did it was like an earthquake that nobody was prepared for - Hard vs Soft brexit talk being the [valid] aftershocks.

Hard Brexit vs. Soft Brexit is kinda "valid" if the discussion is about options. If folk want to argue that an EFTA/EEA deal à la Norway is the best option, that’s fine. And if they want to call it “Soft Brexit”, I’ll let it go (despite some reservations) because I'm not a total shithead and there are more important things to debate than nomenclature.

What grates is when it’s used to justify the (imagine the most annoying whiny child voice in the world) “but we were never told we were getting Hard Brexit” stuff, the implication being that the evil, duplicitous Mrs May is pursuing a course radically different to what most people thought Brexit meant. That's complete bollocks.

 

[sl1k]

What grates is when it’s used to justify the (imagine the most annoying whiny child voice in the world) “but we were never told we were getting Hard Brexit” stuff, the implication being that the evil, duplicitous Mrs May is pursuing a course radically different to what most people thought Brexit meant. That's complete bollocks.

Fair do's

And it is [complete bollocks] - the particular thing you speak of at least. Attempting to spin the narrative. For what? Fuck knows.

Well for someone's political capital gains I guess.

 

[mowgli]

We are leaving The EU and i can't understand those who object to understand that the majority of those people who got out of bed to vote made sure we leave the imploding EU. I what i hate is hearing students accusing pensioners of ruining their lives, sort yourselves out and get out of bed and fight for what you believe in.

 

[Dirk]

I what i hate is hearing students accusing pensioners of ruining their lives, sort yourselves out and get out of bed and fight for what you believe in.

Better not. Let them sleep otherwise they'll fight the pensioners who they accussed of ruining their lives .

92 pages....Will we reach the 100 until the end of march (and the 1000 until the UK is really out?)

 

[.V.]

I think what people object to, with regards to a hard Brexit and the leave campaigners, is the path it'll lead us down in order to to be competitive. So legislating against workers rights, environmental/work place protections, opening up the country to products banned by the EU due to safety reasons etc.

I don't recall this being something the leave campaign were telling us would happen. Some in the remain camp did, but given it was being driven mainly by Dave and co, it was not a narrative they wanted to push.

 

[MJA]

We are leaving The EU and i can't understand those who object to understand that the majority of those people who got out of bed to vote made sure we leave the imploding EU. I what i hate is hearing students accusing pensioners of ruining their lives, sort yourselves out and get out of bed and fight for what you believe in.

I believe there was a very good turnout of 18-24 year olds in the referendum? Surely that is all they could have done to make a 'fight for what they believe in' in a worthwhile way? Or are you suggesting that they waste their time out on the streets with placards and some hastily arranged chants?

To be honest, I understand their point regarding the older generation. This is a decision that is going to affect entire lives when it comes to our newer generations, yet the result is affected by a generation who have little care for the future. Under 18s are deemed incapable of making educated decisions when it comes to voting so maybe there should be a review of the other end of the age scale as well.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

I believe there was a very good turnout of 18-24 year olds in the referendum? Surely that is all they could have done to make a 'fight for what they believe in' in a worthwhile way? Or are you suggesting that they waste their time out on the streets with placards and some hastily arranged chants?

To be honest, I understand their point regarding the older generation. This is a decision that is going to affect entire lives when it comes to our newer generations, yet the result is affected by a generation who have little care for the future. Under 18s are deemed incapable of making educated decisions when it comes to voting so maybe there should be a review of the other end of the age scale as well.

I feel all I ever do in this forum is make links now. So take this one.

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...ections-catch-them-early-and-teach-them-value

 

[MJA]

I won't ever accept this argument from leavers in pointing towards things that the remain campaign said as this is all an irrelevance now. We, as a democratic nation, have voted leave so all eyes are on the leave campaign and what promises they made during their campaign compared to what we are currently hearing and seeing. It's safe to say that there is quite a bit of variation between 'promises' made then and the route we are currently taking.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

I won't ever accept this argument from leavers in pointing towards things that the remain campaign said as this is all an irrelevance now. We, as a democratic nation, have voted leave so all eyes are on the leave campaign and what promises they made during their campaign compared to what we are currently hearing and seeing. It's safe to say that there is quite a bit of variation between 'promises' made then and the route we are currently taking.

No shit.

 

[MJA]

No shit.

It's a shame not everyone can see this

 

[MJA]

Why did the voting options not consist of:

• 'Soft' Leave
• 'Hard' Leave
• Remain

How many people didn't vote because they wanted out of the EU but didn't really want to leave the single market?
How many people voted leave even though they probably didn't see it as a great move to leave the EU but wanted to make that 'show of strength' against the regime?

 

[Krazy8]

Why did the voting options not consist of:

• 'Soft' Leave
• 'Hard' Leave
• Remain

What if it had finished 26% soft, 26% hard and 48% remain? Would remain have won?

We don't get a referendum or vote on everything debated by parliament, it's left to our MPs (who we've voted for) to decide as they see fit. We voted to leave, now it's up to the MPs to do that job.

It's safe to say that there is quite a bit of variation between 'promises' made then and the route we are currently taking.

Which promises are you referring to? Nothing's happened yet that's surprised me. It's obvious there would be some things that are different or don't work out as expected as it's such a monumental task.

Under 18s are deemed incapable of making educated decisions when it comes to voting so maybe there should be a review of the other end of the age scale as well.

Anything to get the result you want...

 

[Laker]

You are of course assuming that people voted just because of the campaigns of either side. Most people I've spoken to since the vote were so fucked off by both sides they switched off and either went with their conscience or did their own research before coming to a decision.

 

[sl1k]

It was a shit and unhelpful campaign from both sides tbf. The politicians are getting nowhere near the amount of crap for it as they should, cos it all gets smokescreened out from all the dirt slinging and the constituent's ignorance around an extremely complex issue.

We are governed by a bunch of childish self-interest self-serving buffoons.

 

[MJA]

What if it had finished 26% soft, 26% hard and 48% remain? Would remain have won?

Yes! The reality is, the whole soft and hard issue is proving nearly as big a debate as the referendum as a whole.

We don't get a referendum or vote on everything debated by parliament, it's left to our MPs (who we've voted for) to decide as they see fit. We voted to leave, now it's up to the MPs to do that job.

I don't recall anyone voting for Theresa May to be the one to take us into Brexit.
Maybe there should be more opportunity for the public to vote on more things, instead of it being left to a few who make decisions to suit their own agenda......and bank balance.

Which promises are you referring to? Nothing's happened yet that's surprised me. It's obvious there would be some things that are different or don't work out as expected as it's such a monumental task.

Do you not remember the big bus pre-referendum and comments dismissing it afterwards?

Anything to get the result you want...

Can you offer a more reasoned debate against what I have suggested?

 

[MJA]

It was a shit and unhelpful campaign from both sides tbf. The politicians are getting nowhere near the amount of crap for it as they should, cos it all gets smokescreened out from all the dirt slinging and the constituent's ignorance around an extremely complex issue.

We are governed by a bunch of childish self-interest self-serving buffoons.

You have summed up the entire process very nicely there sl1k.

In fact you have probably summed up the entirety of British politics. Have UK politicians ever been so far away from the reality of the majority of UK residents?

 

[silkyman]

Leave campaigners have come out and admitted that they wouldn't have won the referendum without the £350m lie. There wasn't a single thing that the remain camp said that was as influential and as immediately admitted as dishonesty.

Leave repeatedly spoke about staying in the single market and now Mayhem is dragging us out of it with no scrutiny just so meet her red line on immigration that won't work anyway.

But yeah. Vanishingly arrow majority in an advisory non-binding vote won on deliberate dishonesty and racism that didn't mention the single market. Tally ho, Mrs May. Clear mandate to do whatever the shit you like.

 

[Gladders]

Did the majority vote for a hard brexit, cobbled together by Theresa May and her hand-picked cronies?

Cos that wasn't on my fucking ballot paper.

Funny that because my paper said do you wish to leave the EU, yes or no?

Yes means fucking leave, not oh lets leave but keep this rule and that rule oh and while were at it we'll keep that part too.

 

[Laker]

Leave campaigners have come out and admitted that they wouldn't have won the referendum without the £350m lie. There wasn't a single thing that the remain camp said that was as influential and as immediately admitted as dishonesty.

Leave repeatedly spoke about staying in the single market and now Mayhem is dragging us out of it with no scrutiny just so meet her red line on immigration that won't work anyway.

But yeah. Vanishingly arrow majority in an advisory non-binding vote won on deliberate dishonesty and racism that didn't mention the single market. Tally ho, Mrs May. Clear mandate to do whatever the shit you like.

If remain had won, remains scaremongering would have been "the single biggest lie" as you put it.

Leave won, on the basis of the campaigns or not. I'm sceptical whether the campaigns had anything to do with it in the end except for alienating people, regardless of what the leave campaign may or may not claimed.

Remain meant stay in altogether, leave meant out altogether. I voted under that impression as any half way house would have been a weaker strategy than remain, and leave would ultimately reach that obvious conclusion.

 

[Gladders]

Leave repeatedly spoke about staying in the single market

No they did not, the official leave campaign repeatedly said leave meant leaving the single market

 

[silkyman]

 

[Gladders]

https://www.ft.com/content/0c5c74bc-151e-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e