European Union Referendum

[johnnytodd]

The 27 are blackmailing the UK.

I say fuck em and leave tonight after MOTD2

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

It's a bit bloody rude of Juncker tbh. Glad Angela Merkel doesn't make a speech every time I embarrass myself at a dinner party.

"ooh look at me, I get invited to dinner parties"

pathetic

 

[Gashead]

The 27 are blackmailing the UK.

I say fuck em and leave tonight after MOTD2

I got some bad news for you...

 

[smat]

Tories would lose mandate to leave EU single market if they lose majority, suggests Brexit Secretary

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

A pretty nonsensical claim, but they were always going to try and betray the vote once UKIP was buried. Farage will be back soon it looks like then.

 

[Chris FGR]

A pretty nonsensical claim, but they were always going to try and betray the vote once UKIP was buried. Farage will be back soon it looks like then.

People voted to leave the EU, not the single market.

Any sort of UKIP comeback will hurt the tories far more then Labour.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

People voted to leave the EU, not the single market.

Of course, and if the EU made it possible to stay within the single market without freedom of movement tacked on then Brexit might have won in a landslide. There were a range of issues that lead people to vote to Leave, but the mostly widely supported, and the one the government has the clearest mandate to chase, has to be regaining control of Britain borders, which can't be done without leaving the single market.

Any sort of UKIP comeback will hurt the tories far more then Labour.

Based on what? Most of UKIP's gains and losses have come from working class people who voted Labour.

 

[smat]

Of course, and if the EU made it possible to stay within the single market without freedom of movement tacked on then Brexit might have won in a landslide. There were a range of issues that lead people to vote to Leave, but the mostly widely supported, and the one the government has the clearest mandate to chase, has to be regaining control of Britain borders, which can't be done without leaving the single market.

You sort of always say this, but you can't go back and change the question on the ballot paper. It was an idiotic, poorly devised referendum and there is no mandate for any specific type of Brexit.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

With the election result as it is, keeping the 4 freedoms in order to stay a member of the Single market now looks like the most likely outcome. Freedom of movement looks like it is set to stay, but no longer having a seat at the table.

The Tories could then try in 2022 after another GE to change that as they will have nothing left to lose and pull out of it, but it gives them time to gauge public opinion. A no deal scenario would happen if we left the Single market to control movement of people and with parliament as it is now it's unlikely that will get through parliament until after 2022 or never. Knowing Labour could sweep up a Majority in 2022, then it's one thing the Tories could use as a carrot to dangle.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

I see no way that this government will last until 2022.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

I see no way that this government will last until 2022.

Maybe so, but I can't see Labour supporting another GE until they are ahead in the polls, and the Tories won't call another either in the next few years. 2020 is possible once Brexit with the 4 freedoms and staying in the Single market is ratified, then Tories going for one last roll of the dice on the Single market issue

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Maybe so, but I can't see Labour supporting another GE until they are ahead in the polls, and the Tories won't call another either in the next few years. 2020 is possible once Brexit with the 4 freedoms and staying in the Single market is ratified, then Tories going for one last roll of the dice on the Single market issue

True, but as we've just proved... The polls can be deceiving.

 

[Alty]

With the election result as it is, keeping the 4 freedoms in order to stay a member of the Single market now looks like the most likely outcome. Freedom of movement looks like it is set to stay, but no longer having a seat at the table.

The Tories could then try in 2022 after another GE to change that as they will have nothing left to lose and pull out of it, but it gives them time to gauge public opinion. A no deal scenario would happen if we left the Single market to control movement of people and with parliament as it is now it's unlikely that will get through parliament until after 2022 or never. Knowing Labour could sweep up a Majority in 2022, then it's one thing the Tories could use as a carrot to dangle.

I don't think that's true at all.

You have to remember that the Tories have been talking up a hard Brexit (i.e. a real Brexit) for months and have soared in the polls while doing so. Labour know this too which is why Corbyn (who also hates the EU, remember) has repeatedly said free movement should end and the UK should seek to maintain "tariff free access" to the single market.

What will be interesting now is whether May can portray her position of weakness as something useful in negotiations. That is, can she say to Barnier and co "you have to give me something better than this to take back or the head bangers will never accept it and they'll remove me as leader". It would take a lot of chutzpah but you have to scratch around for something positive as we approach this situation!

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

You sort of always say this, but you can't go back and change the question on the ballot paper. It was an idiotic, poorly devised referendum and there is no mandate for any specific type of Brexit.

So in lieu of a black and white clear cut mandate, the powers that be should just go with whatever they fancy, instead of interpreting the will of the electorate as best they can? Because it was pretty clear throughout that people were voting under the understanding that they would be escaping freedom of movement at the risk of losing the free market. It was at the core of most of the debate.

 

[smat]

So in lieu of a black and white clear cut mandate, the powers that be should just go with whatever they fancy, instead of interpreting the will of the electorate as best they can? Because it was pretty clear throughout that people were voting under the understanding that they would be escaping freedom of movement at the risk of losing the free market. It was at the core of most of the debate.

These two bolded bits contradict each other - you acknowledge there's no black and white mandate, but then tell me it was "pretty clear" what people were voting for. The truth is that it was all over the place and there was no clarity whatsoever! Theresa May tried to put a hard/clean/red, white & blue/wet/cold Brexit at the centre of her election campaign and she didn't win a majority. It's a mess, mate! That's what I'm saying!

As for what I think should happen... I like the idea of a cross-party committee (or even a national government?!) bringing together the brightest and best of parliament and agreeing on what is BEST for the country. For a better or worse, it's happening. Theresa May's government *cannot* be trusted to get this right. They are a complete fucking shambles.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Matt, you’ve just campaigned and voted for a lifelong EU-sceptic who thinks Brexit means ending freedom of movement. He expressed this on numerous occasions during the campaign, including on live TV, and even included it in the Labour manifesto (see paragraph 2 on page 28).

Those who favour 'Soft Brexit' want to fudge the whole thing by continuing Britain’s full participation in the single market via the EEA agreement. That means keeping freedom of movement. This point was made repeatedly during the campaign, even if some people have now conveniently managed to forget. Freedom of movement is one of the four undividable (i.e. non-negotiable) freedoms of the EEA agreement.

The Labour manifesto might include some vague guff about “retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the customs union” (see page 24), but it’s fundamentally dishonest to pretend Britain can do that and end freedom of movement. There isn’t an à la carte option when it comes to this stuff. Again, this point was made repeatedly during the referendum campaign.

It’s a sad indictment of the Tories, the media and the wider electorate (who really ought to be more knowledgeable in this area by now) that the crafty old sod got away with this fib. But he did. His comments about ending freedom of movement managed to win back voters from UKIP but he didn’t bang the Brexit drum loud enough to alarm the Remain voters in metropolitan areas and affluent suburbs. An impressive balancing act (and one key to getting 40% of the vote) but it was achieved by lying.

Given that the Tories and Labour both stood for election pledging to continue with Brexit and end freedom of movement, around 85% of the electorate has just voted for what is commonly called 'Hard Brexit'.

I don’t have much faith in the government’s ability to do anything right now, but that’s another matter. An important matter, for sure, but one quite extraneous to this talk about 'Hard Brexit' vs. 'Soft Brexit' and whether there's a mandate for it. Anyone who says there isn’t a mandate for 'Hard Brexit' (a.k.a. Brexit) is either in denial or doesn’t know what 'Hard Brexit' actually means. There is actually a stronger mandate for it now than there was three days ago.

What you propose – i.e. a completely technocratic solution – is something no one has voted for. It also goes completely against the spirit of the Brexit vote, which was (among other things) a rejection of technocracy.

 

[Abertawe]

Matt, you’ve just campaigned and voted for a lifelong EU-sceptic who thinks Brexit means ending freedom of movement. He expressed this on numerous occasions during the campaign, including on live TV, and even included it in the Labour manifesto (see paragraph 2 on page 28).

Those who favour 'Soft Brexit' want to fudge the whole thing by continuing Britain’s full participation in the single market via the EEA agreement. That means keeping freedom of movement. This point was made repeatedly during the campaign, even if some people have now conveniently managed to forget. Freedom of movement is one of the four undividable (i.e. non-negotiable) freedoms of the EEA agreement.

The Labour manifesto might include some vague guff about “retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the customs union” (see page 24), but it’s fundamentally dishonest to pretend Britain can do that and end freedom of movement. There isn’t an à la carte option when it comes to this stuff. Again, this point was made repeatedly during the referendum campaign.

It’s a sad indictment of the Tories, the media and the wider electorate (who really ought to be more knowledgeable in this area by now) that the crafty old sod got away with this fib. But he did. His comments about ending freedom of movement managed to win back voters from UKIP but he didn’t bang the Brexit drum loud enough to alarm the Remain voters in metropolitan areas and affluent suburbs. An impressive balancing act (and one key to getting 40% of the vote) but it was achieved by lying.

Given that the Tories and Labour both stood for election pledging to continue with Brexit and end freedom of movement, around 85% of the electorate has just voted for what is commonly called 'Hard Brexit'.

I don’t have much faith in the government’s ability to do anything right now, but that’s another matter. An important matter, for sure, but one quite extraneous to this talk about 'Hard Brexit' vs. 'Soft Brexit' and whether there's a mandate for it. Anyone who says there isn’t a mandate for 'Hard Brexit' (a.k.a. Brexit) is either in denial or doesn’t know what 'Hard Brexit' actually means. There is actually a stronger mandate for it now than there was three days ago.

What you propose – i.e. a completely technocratic solution – is something no one has voted for. It also goes completely against the spirit of the Brexit vote, which was (among other things) a rejection of technocracy.

This is wrong. You're either lying or the stress of this week has done you in. Regardless to define hard brexit on the sole basis of putting an end to free movement makes you sound like Tim Farron.

"There isn't an a la carte option" is a bit of a fib mate. We don't have to be locked into the EEA agreement in order to retain benefits of the single market & customs union, nor will we have to make do with EFTA and surrender to free movement still. We're negotiating our own unique agreement or so I thought. There could be a million non negotiable freedoms within the EEA agreement it wouldn't matter a jot if we're not in it.

I don't believe for a second they won't compromise free movement for some efficient visa system in our unique agreement so an a la carte agreement is exactly what we'll end up with. We're both too important to one another for there not to be one. We could essentially copy & paste much of the EEA as it is with the exception of the obvious, art 1, p2, (b) so long as we do some tweaking to ensure (e) is not compromised. There are parts of free movement that we'd both do well to retain too such as art 30. Ending free movement may result in a higher divorce bill but that's the cost of our decision. There is an argument to be had too that not having the UK as direct competition for labour will ultimately do well for the remaining states. That's just a tiny snapshot of what'll be weighed up by both sides in the negotiations.

Your sentiment on Labour presenting "guff" doesn't tally with the reality either. There's only one party who has shown an honest will to retain, protect & invest in many of the different articles that make up the EEA. 73 & 78 feature heavily in the broader outline of Labour's manifesto. Labour's framework for negotiation is pretty clear cut and is actually in harmony with the EU's wants too. Stark contrast to how the Cons have conducted themselves to date.

Ending free movement does not equate to a hard brexit and to suggest it does is you being partisan for the sake of it. If anything a relaxation of free movement in favour of an efficient visa system will be the ultimate end game for both parties. When people talk hard brexit they're worrying about human rights, workers rights, environmental protections, tariff trade & essentially the threat to Europe that we're prepared to have a corporate tax war.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

These two bolded bits contradict each other - you acknowledge there's no black and white mandate, but then tell me it was "pretty clear" what people were voting for. [...]

I didn't, I said it was clear that they were voting under a certain understanding of what would probably happen in the event that the Brexit vote won. If we leave the free market then nobody who voted for Brexit will be in a position to complain, but if the government forces us to retain freedom of movement then they sure as fuck will be.

 

[smat]

Matt, you’ve just campaigned and voted for a lifelong EU-sceptic who thinks Brexit means ending freedom of movement. He expressed this on numerous occasions during the campaign, including on live TV, and even included it in the Labour manifesto (see paragraph 2 on page 28).

I did, but don't mistake that for a total endorsement for everything he believes in. Brexit is not why I campaigned for him to win, just as I assume you didn't vote for the Conservatives to bring back foxhunting (...I assume).

Those who favour 'Soft Brexit' want to fudge the whole thing by continuing Britain’s full participation in the single market via the EEA agreement. That means keeping freedom of movement. This point was made repeatedly during the campaign, even if some people have now conveniently managed to forget. Freedom of movement is one of the four undividable (i.e. non-negotiable) freedoms of the EEA agreement.

I know, and my point is that that wasn't on the ballot paper, and to claim that it was crystal clear the whole way through the campaign is wrong! Here are some prominent Leavers muddying the waters (I posted this a few pages ago but it bears repeating):

If the likes of Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage (!) were leaving the option open, then how can you and Ebbe be so sure that people were voting to leave the Single Market and consequently to 'end freedom of movement'?

Given that the Tories and Labour both stood for election pledging to continue with Brexit and end freedom of movement, around 85% of the electorate has just voted for what is commonly called 'Hard Brexit'.

Well, did they? I think Lord Ashcroft's polling indicated that 48% of Conservative voters' primary concern was Brexit, but the reasons for voting Labour were much more diverse. The highest was the NHS on 33% and I'm not sure Brexit even got into the top five (though I may be wrong as I can't find the graphs now!) If soft/hard wasn't on the ballot box on June 23rd last year, it certainly wasn't on Thursday.

I don’t have much faith in the government’s ability to do anything right now, but that’s another matter. An important matter, for sure, but one quite extraneous to this talk about 'Hard Brexit' vs. 'Soft Brexit' and whether there's a mandate for it. Anyone who says there isn’t a mandate for 'Hard Brexit' (a.k.a. Brexit) is either in denial or doesn’t know what 'Hard Brexit' actually means. There is actually a stronger mandate for it now than there was three days ago.

What did you make of this quote from David Davis last Wednesday?

“It said we want to leave the customs union and single market, but get access to them, and to have a deep and special relationship with Europe. It’s a Brexit which seeks to give the best deal in terms of economic and commercial opportunity with Europe but also open up opportunity with the rest of the world. That’s what it was about, that’s what we put in front of the people, we’ll see tomorrow whether they’ve accepted that or not. That will be their decision.”

What you propose – i.e. a completely technocratic solution – is something no one has voted for. It also goes completely against the spirit of the Brexit vote, which was (among other things) a rejection of technocracy.

So the vote to leave was most definitely a vote to leave the Single Market, but also 'a rejection of technocracy'? I really do object to this projection of what votes mean. Imo the vote was a lashing out at the conditions wrought by almost 40 years of untrammelled market liberalism but I'm not going around saying it's a mandate for closing down Deliveroo.

Anyway, I won't defend the cross-party idea because I haven't given it much thought and it's getting away from the point. Which was that the referendum was a careless, irresponsible botch that wanted a 'yes/no' answer to a multiple choice question.

 

[smat]

If we leave the free market then nobody who voted for Brexit will be in a position to complain

...except the ones who wanted to stay in the single market.

but if the government forces us to retain freedom of movement then they sure as fuck will be.

Boo hoo, the government should have asked them that then.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

I feel It's worth pointing out that Labour literally said "freedom of movement would end" in their 2017 manifesto

 

[HertsWolf]

I wonder if there is going to be a specific single day on which Daily Mail and Daily Express readers suddenly realise that the Council of Europe (and therefore the European Court of Human Rights) is an entirely different entity to the EU?

They are going to be absolutely apoplectic when they find out. And I'd quite like to watch.

 

[smat]

I feel It's worth pointing out that Labour literally said "freedom of movement would end" in their 2017 manifesto

It has been pointed out, read Scumbag's post.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

...except the ones who wanted to stay in the single market.

Why? They knew leaving was (supposed to be) the probable consequence of Brexit when they voted for it.

 

[smat]

Why? They knew leaving was (supposed to be) the probable consequence of Brexit when they voted for it.

Are you just winding me up now? You absolute scamp.

 

[smat]

Maybe we should have a referendum on this?

please god no

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I’m sorry, Matt, but I kinda don’t care anymore.

Your post is fine. A few weeks ago I would posted a detailed response, albeit one heavy with points that have been made (and largely ignored) many times before. It’s exhausting debating this stuff because people on both sides of the Remain/Leave divide interpret the evidence through the lens of whatever they want to believe and usually end up talking past each other.

A fundamental problem with politics, for sure, but I’ve pretty much reached the end of my tether, at least with the Europe stuff. I know you’re quite new to political campaigning and (being fully sincere here) that’s great. But I’ve been engaged in some form of political campaigning since my late teens, most of it aimed towards British withdrawal from the EU. It’s beyond frustrating to work towards something for 15-20 years, only to hand it over to the useless sack of shit Tory Party and see them fuck it up in less than 12 months.

The truth is I’m too pissed off to debate this properly at the moment. The only point I will throw out is this:

I genuinely do think Mrs May’s ‘Hard Brexit’ (with withdrawal from the single market and all that entails) is Brexit as most Leave voters understand it. You can choose to dismiss that as “projection” if you wish. Someone less invested in the debate might ponder the possibility that I, being a Leave voter who has spent countless hours in friendly conversation with Leave voters, have a better feel for how they think than you do.

Buyer’s regret is usually easy to see in politics (e.g. disgruntled Lib-Dem voters circa 2010-2015) and I see very little evidence of it among Leave voters, here and elsewhere. It’s rare to encounter a Leaver who says he didn’t know what he was doing or that he was somehow duped by Farage or Hannan. The idea that Leave voters didn’t know what they were voting for almost invariably comes from Remain voters who are angry about the result and determined to delegitimise it.

FWIW I don’t think the election result – taking into account how the anti-Brexit parties tanked and how ‘cleverly’ Mr Corbyn won a decent chunk of the UKIP vote – indicates that Leave voters now think much differently about Brexit than they did 12 months ago. But I also know, or at least strongly suspect, that none of it matters now. The narrative has changed. A fudge is coming. A lot of the tell-tale signs (e.g. some of the ministerial changes) are there and the new parliamentary arithmetic probably requires it.

Chances are we’ll end up with (or at least clumsily pursue) something that Leave voters didn’t want, as well as something that was barely discussed during the referendum campaign. And chances are Remain folk who have spent the last 12 months bleating about democracy (the Gina Millers of this sceptred isle) will revert to their pre-referendum mode of not giving a fucking toss about it, because they’ll have gotten their way, or something close to it.

Bitter? Yep. Capable of discussing this in any useful way? Probably not.

Apols for the crap response.

 

[smat]

No, thank you for the response. One thing we can agree on is that a fudge is coming, and that the Conservatives are a useless sack of shit. Let's conclude this on those terms.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Deal.

 

[smat]

One year today!

How are we feeling about it all, lads?