Brexit View

[Jenny1]

Macron was quite right to say that the referendum did not 'allow for an informed, transparent and calm debate', thus leaving us open to disinformation and manipulation. This was mainly because the referendum was, of course, not called with the intention of starting such a debate but because a lazy and foolish Prime Minister couldn't be bothered to manage the internal tensions in his own party and was looking for an easy way to achieve a quiet life. I doubt we'll get them now, but I wish we could have had the 'citizen assemblies' that informed the debate over abortion rights in Ireland. We'll never see a 'Mueller' type inquiry of course, that would be too much to hope for.

[Hemingway]

A fairly subjective and slightly typical and delusional remainer assessment.

From the start of this post can I say I voted Remain and would do if we get another referendum, but the false narratives, contempt for people of a different viewpoints and delusional group think that many remainers have, (manifested in much of this thread) really makes me fairly sceptical. And, I don't support another referendum nor think it would change the result.

For starters, David Cameron didn't just call the referendum to sort out internal tensions in the tory party. The EU parliament, the body we are so distressed about leaving (although under 40% of us bothered voting in the last Euro elections) the UKIP is our biggest party in the EU Parliament, that's a democratic reality not internal tory politics - in an alternative world, without Brexit, I'm pretty sure we'd have seen a similar result in the May euro elections approaching- Elections that are likely to return a far more Eurosceptic result from Germany and France by the way. Secondly UKIP got 12.5% of the vote in 2015, well above the Liberal Democrats and nothing to do with Tory Party internal politics. Finally, the Conservatives stood on a manifesto that promised a referendum in 2015 and got a surprise majority, I don't believe the two are unrelated and not to have offered a referendum would have been a democratic betrayal.

All of these were well before all the supposed manipulation of the plebs by Cambridge Analytics/illegal funding etc etc etc all red herrings.

I wish we hadn't have had a referendum and were still in but many remainers are in absolute denial about the reasons we are where we are as your post illustrates far too well Jenny.

May's withdrawal deal is not great but it's broadly the best we are going to get and we should accept it to avoid the potential catastophe of no-deal and then hope we get some adults in to negotiate better on the actual trade deal with the EU.

[diable rouge]

Hemingway Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...and then hope we get some adults in to

> negotiate better on the actual trade deal with the

> EU.

What were you saying about delusional?...

[TheCat]

Hemingway Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A fairly subjective and slightly typical and

> delusional remainer assessment.

>

> From the start of this post can I say I voted

> Remain and would do if we get another referendum,

> but the false narratives, contempt for people of a

> different viewpoints and delusional group think

> that many remainers have, (manifested in much of

> this thread) really makes me fairly sceptical.

>

i agree with many parts of this comment. Particualrly after stating that i voted Leave on this thread, then was the subject of relatively aggressive (but polite for the most part) questioning,accusations and some ridicule from various posters (with a few balanced exceptions) then finaly i post 2000 words above with a relatively detailed explanation of my rationale....and apart from maybe 1 or two comments which dont really specifically reference anything i've said, no one has had any meaningful pushback or disagreement with the specific points i've raised. Now this could be that 2000 words was a bit too long of a read, or it could be that everyone is tired of arguing, or (and i want to be clear, im not in anyway saying im 'right' or have all the answers) could it be that perhaps I made a little bit of sense (even if people dont agree with the conclusion) and its much more difficult to mock reasoned thought, than to mock strawman arguements about the bigoted, brexiteer bogeyman hiding under the bed?

[Alan Medic]

TheCat Wrote:

> 3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling

> bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the

> European Council, the Council of the European

> Union, the European Parliament, the European

> Commission, the Court of Justice of the European

> Union, the European Central Bank, and the European

> Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies are

> elected by the people. The rest are appointed. The

> European Council and the European Commission make

> most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are not

> elected bodies. So for example, if you think the

> British government should support British steel

> works or that the railways should be nationalised

> again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally

> bans countries from nationalising certain

> industries.

In response to your comment that people can't be bother to reply to your post, I will try and do it bit by bit.

Read this with regard to nationalising industries and perhaps explain where it is wrong?

https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/

With regard to unelected institutions see below:

[Jenny1]

Hemingway. UKIP did, of course, do comparatively well in the 2015 election. But why would that result, out of interest, be of more relevance than the much better showing by the Liberal Democrats in 2010, when considering UK attitudes towards the EU? The fact that UKIP were polling better in 2015 than in the past doesn't negate the point I make that the in/out referendum of 2016 was not designed to cause a deep, thorough debate about this country's place in or out of Europe. Imagine you had actually wanted a proper, national consideration of this issue. How would you have gone about it? I'm sure you could have come up with a model which might well have included the types of public assemblies which I referenced in Ireland, and which would have grappled with the issues much more effectively than the one that Cameron picked.

As to Cambridge Analytica ('etc, etc, etc!) - Doesn't it show more 'contempt for the plebs' not to abide by our own electoral rules? Doesn't that trivialise our democracy, and hence all the votes we caste, to an unforgivable degree?

[TheCat]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In response to your comment that people can't be

> bother to reply to your post, I will try and do it

> bit by bit.

Thanks for the good faith reponse alan. I'll have a read of the link later today and make comment accordingly. I might indeed learn somewthing new! Which I will admit if I do (even if begrudgingly so:)). But right now....its saturday morning, so the kids are about to be ferried to all manner of activities......

[JoeLeg]

TheCat-

I also have every intention of replying to your lengthy post; it?s just that I?m swamped in work right now and can?t give it the attention it merits (I mean that in a good way).

Be assured, I?ll get on it in a day or two. You?ve obviously putvthough into it and it doesn?t deserve some half-formed 140 characters of nonsense.

[alex_b]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> i agree with many parts of this comment.

> Particualrly after stating that i voted Leave on

> this thread, then was the subject of relatively

> aggressive (but polite for the most part)

> questioning,accusations and some ridicule from

> various posters (with a few balanced exceptions)

> then finaly i post 2000 words above with a

> relatively detailed explanation of my

> rationale....and apart from maybe 1 or two

> comments which dont really specifically reference

> anything i've said, no one has had any meaningful

> pushback or disagreement with the specific points

> i've raised. Now this could be that 2000 words was

> a bit too long of a read, or it could be that

> everyone is tired of arguing, or (and i want to be

> clear, im not in anyway saying im 'right' or have

> all the answers) could it be that perhaps I made a

> little bit of sense (even if people dont agree

> with the conclusion) and its much more difficult

> to mock reasoned thought, than to mock strawman

> arguements about the bigoted, brexiteer bogeyman

> hiding under the bed?

I didn't reply for a few reasons:

1. It was far too long

2. It didn't in any way answer my question which wasn't "why don't you like the EU" but "what specific form of arrangement with the EU and other countries do you think we could get that would be better".

3. The arguments over those points have been done to death. I think they're mostly untrue, misleading or irrelevant but nobody's going to change their mind on these now.

If you want to suggest what your preferred outcome is (and what you thought it might be) I'm happy to discuss it, but I'm not going to bother arguing over which is more democratic the UK or the EU.

[rendelharris]

Hemingway wrote:

> UKIP is our biggest party in the EU Parliament

Actually, no it isn't. It won more seats in the 2014 elections (24) than any other party, but since then so many MEPs have left in disgust at the party's rightward drift that UKIP actually now has only seven MEPs left. Labour, with 20 seats, is the biggest UK party in the EU Parliament.

[diable rouge]

What alex said, I didn't think it answered the question.

And as it was a specific question to Cat from alex, and Cat's reply was specifically addressed to alex, I stayed out of it...

[TheCat]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > i agree with many parts of this comment.

> > Particualrly after stating that i voted Leave

> on

> > this thread, then was the subject of relatively

> > aggressive (but polite for the most part)

> > questioning,accusations and some ridicule from

> > various posters (with a few balanced

> exceptions)

> > then finaly i post 2000 words above with a

> > relatively detailed explanation of my

> > rationale....and apart from maybe 1 or two

> > comments which dont really specifically

> reference

> > anything i've said, no one has had any

> meaningful

> > pushback or disagreement with the specific

> points

> > i've raised. Now this could be that 2000 words

> was

> > a bit too long of a read, or it could be that

> > everyone is tired of arguing, or (and i want to

> be

> > clear, im not in anyway saying im 'right' or

> have

> > all the answers) could it be that perhaps I made

> a

> > little bit of sense (even if people dont agree

> > with the conclusion) and its much more

> difficult

> > to mock reasoned thought, than to mock strawman

> > arguements about the bigoted, brexiteer

> bogeyman

> > hiding under the bed?

>

> I didn't reply for a few reasons:

> 1. It was far too long

> 2. It didn't in any way answer my question which

> wasn't "why don't you like the EU" but "what

> specific form of arrangement with the EU and other

> countries do you think we could get that would be

> better".

> 3. The arguments over those points have been done

> to death. I think they're mostly untrue,

> misleading or irrelevant but nobody's going to

> change their mind on these now.

>

> If you want to suggest what your preferred outcome

> is (and what you thought it might be) I'm happy to

> discuss it, but I'm not going to bother arguing

> over which is more democratic the UK or the EU.

Blimey. And they reckon leavers like to bang on about the same thing over and over again. I've ackowledged and explained to you that at the time of the vote I didn't have a clear, detailed map in my mind, and ive also outlined the reasons why I thougt that was okay AT THE TIME. I've said that if you feel I should have had a more detailed map, then that's fine, but I disagree, and posted again suggesting why I felt it was not practical at the time. So, once again, at the time of he vote, I DID NOT have a clear, detailed plan. That's the answer to your question, you might not like it. You can keep asking it. The answer doesn't change.

Also, above is the first time you've asked me what my plan is NOW. Previously your questions were what idea DID I have in mind at the time of the vote. I've said I didn't have one at the time. I assume you wanted to understand a leaver shtought process that lead to voting to leave.

Im also mildly bemused that you demand I give you a detailed plan of what I wanted. But yet, you complain that my earlier post is 'far too long' and you cite arguements that have been 'done to death', without actualy making any arguements yourself. You don't want to talk aabout democratic process?, fine there's at least 5-6 points I made rhat have nothing to do with 'democracy'....you could even choose to ackowledge that one or two points might be reasonable, or that might be asking too much.

I've contributed plenty to this thread on my views. You seem like a sensible person, but you've largely just poked holes in other people's ideas or questioned their motives. Time for some positive contributions alex_b

[Jenny1]

Hi TheCat. I take your point that the referendum in 2016 didn't offer us the chance to get into the detail of what the future might look like for the UK, either in or out of the EU. I was wondering if you thought, in retrospect, that it would have been useful if that process had allowed more time and space for that very thing (along with fuller debate of all the issues)? See my mention above of the 'peoples assemblies' they held in Ireland to fully dive into the contentious debate over abortion.

[diable rouge]

*Sticks hand up in the air*

I'd like to ask Cat if he felt it wasn't possible at the time of voting to have a detailed plan of what Brexit entailed, does it now make sense to have a second vote now that there is a detailed plan?...

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Sticks hand up in the air*

>

> I'd like to ask Cat if he felt it wasn't possible

> at the time of voting to have a detailed plan of

> what Brexit entailed, does it now make sense to

> have a second vote now that there is a detailed

> plan?...

Yes. It certainly does. But, in the interest of public harmony (which we have a distinct lack of already), I don't think it would be wise for one of the options to be..rescind article 50/remain (again not because I personally would cry if the result was reversed (remember i've said both options have their positives and negatives), but other leavers certainly would and I worry that a swing in the in vote would create significant social unrest - probably more than leaving). So it would probably be advisable to have a vote on options to Leave....ie may's deal, no deal or extend article 50....

[TheCat]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi TheCat. I take your point that the referendum

> in 2016 didn't offer us the chance to get into the

> detail of what the future might look like for the

> UK, either in or out of the EU. I was wondering if

> you thought, in retrospect, that it would have

> been useful if that process had allowed more time

> and space for that very thing (along with fuller

> debate of all the issues)? See my mention above of

> the 'peoples assemblies' they held in Ireland to

> fully dive into the contentious debate over

> abortion.

Yep. Absolutely. In a number of my comments above I have bemoaned the terrible nature of both campaigns and their lack of ability to focus on what really mattered. It right from the start we descended into soundbites and mud-slinging...i'd optimistically hoped after the vote, we migh be able to assess those things with a more informed public debate, but thats never happened unfortunately.

[Jenny1]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

i'd

> optimistically hoped after the vote, we migh be

> able to assess those things with a more informed

> public debate, but thats never happened

> unfortunately.

Absolutely. In reality we could, of course, begin such a process now - after an extension to Article 50. And I'm angry that May and Corbyn are still not prioritising thoughtful discussion about the long-term direction of this country. It suits them to pretend that we have a gun held to our heads and must make rushed decisions. This has, of course, been May's tactic all along. I think it stems from the fact that she is essentially approaching the whole situation as Cameron did - ie the priority is the continued unity of the Conservative Party, and the week by week survival of her own government.

[alex_b]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Blimey. And they reckon leavers like to bang on

> about the same thing over and over again. I've

> ackowledged and explained to you that at the time

> of the vote I didn't have a clear, detailed map in

> my mind, and ive also outlined the reasons why I

> thougt that was okay AT THE TIME. I've said that

> if you feel I should have had a more detailed map,

> then that's fine, but I disagree, and posted again

> suggesting why I felt it was not practical at the

> time. So, once again, at the time of he vote, I

> DID NOT have a clear, detailed plan. That's the

> answer to your question, you might not like it.

> You can keep asking it. The answer doesn't

> change.

Ok, that's fine. I think it's criminally negligent to embark on a potentially economically catastrophic exercise without having an end point in mind, but if that's what you think is responsible governance then well done.

This is one of the parts of the referendum that makes me most angry as (unlike in Ireland) one side of the referendum were free to present multiple, mutually incompatible (and often unachievable) outcomes to maximise their vote and now are claiming that this somehow binds the country to whichever outcome they personally prefer now.

You also claim that the future was unknowable at the time. This is categorically untrue. There are many models we could follow: Norway (EFTA), Switzerland (single market), Turkey (customs union), Canada (overarching free trade agreement) or the US (50+ bilateral trade agreements). You could have chosen to envisage that type of relationship and consider the tradeoffs but instead you gave a big list of things you didn't like about the EU and imperilled tens of thousands of jobs based on those feelings with no destination in mind.

If I decided to move to California, before I sold all of my worldly possessions you might think I'd have an idea of what I'd want to do over there (and how I'd achieve that), rather than just a vague feeling that I didn't like the weather here and that Arnie did ok when he moved to LA. You voted for promises of being both a movie star and a Silicon Valley billionaire (at the same time). The realty now looks like we're going to be homeless in the Tenderloin district but apparently we've made the decision now and have to get on the plane.

> Im also mildly bemused that you demand I give you

> a detailed plan of what I wanted. But yet, you

> complain that my earlier post is 'far too long'

> and you cite arguements that have been 'done to

> death', without actualy making any arguements

> yourself. You don't want to talk aabout democratic

> process?, fine there's at least 5-6 points I made

> rhat have nothing to do with 'democracy'....you

> could even choose to ackowledge that one or two

> points might be reasonable, or that might be

> asking too much.

Ok fine. I can't imagine this will change anything but here goes:

1. The economy: The claims by economists can now be judged against the preparation industry are making in advance of leaving the EU. Most investment banks are cutting their UK workforce by 25%+ especially at the management level as EU regulators insist that management are based in an EU country. One financial services firm I know has moved ?750m a year of contracts to another European country to avoid the regulatory risk.

This isn't just a short term loss, the increased friction in goods and services will reduce our trade into Europe for the long term. This cannot be rectified by even a doubling of trade with our much smaller and more distant trading partners.

2. Immigration: We already have the ability to control EU immigration (3 months to find a job or be financially self supporting), we could be far more controlling on benefits too if we moved to a mandatory contribution model. The fact that successive governments have chosen to enrich landlords and house builders rather than resolving our housing and infrastructure crisis is nothing to do with the EU or EU migrants. In fact as EU migrants are net contributors to the tax base, reducing EU migration is likely to worsen the problems you identify.

3. EU bureaucracy: The EU institutions are more democratic than UK institutions, we only get to elect the commons and the vast majority of seats in the commons are "safe". I've never voted in a constituency where the result wasn't a foregone conclusion. The other institutions are appointed by our government (and other governments) and have democratic legitimacy that way. As for constraints on nationalisation, why do all other EU countries have nationalised rail? In any case the UK was the leading force in instigating the state aid rules and similar rules are enshrined in many trading agreements (e.g. CETA).

4. One size does not fit all: I might agree with you if the debate was about the Euro, but it isn't. In any case if the UK is at the Germany end of the spectrum surely this should work to our favour (like it has for them)? We could argue whether this is fair to Greece, but I don't see why blowing up our economy by leaving the EU helps Greece.

On the flip side, our membership of the EU makes us much bigger in negotiating with non-EU states. Who is likely to reach a more favourable trade agreement with China and the US us on our own or the EU as a whole?

5. Sovereignty: Even if true (which I don't think it is as we have a vote on any bail out measures and are not in the Euro), I think that it is in our self interest to maintain stability in our neighbours and trading partners. Simply put, we are not giving up our sovereignty for no gain, we're accepting constraints on our actions in order to gain something we want. This is no different in principal to accepting arbitration clauses or other restrictions in any other trade agreement we have.

6. Shutting the UK off from the world: You make the usual argument that Australia trades just fine with the EU and aren't part of the club. UK trade is 2% of Australia's total exports (we're their biggest EU trading partner), Pacific nations are almost 60% of their exports. This is why they already have a tightly integrated trading partnership with New Zealand (including free movement) and are trying to get a comprehensive Pacific agreement (TPP). The UK is the only country in the world asking for less free trade with our partners.

Being outside of the club will make us rule takers and will necessarily limit our ability to trade. If there were no advantage to being in the EU why would anyone join? If the leave campaign had been intellectually honest enough to campaign on a single detailed model of future trade we could have examined the costs and benefits but unfortunately we only got a shallow "why I don't like the EU" argument and a bunch of contradictory promises.

7: Losing workers? rights: I do not trust governments to resist either populism or acting in the self-interest of their funders. The fundamental rights of the EU act as a brake on either of these instincts. The EU protections still fall short (look at Poland at the moment) but are still much better than the UK parliament where the executive (usually) have absolute legislative power as no parliament can bind its successor.

8: It's not about individuals: Actually I think to an extent it is. Look at who enthusiastically supports Brexit, white nationalists like Farage and Tommy Robinson, and libertarian ultra capitalists like Rees-Mogg and Johnson. Look who opposes Brexit, business leaders, academics, centrist liberals. It's not always the case that you can judge an argument by its supporters, but in this case I think if you're siding with outright racists you might want to think if that's the company you want to keep.

> I've contributed plenty to this thread on my

> views. You seem like a sensible person, but you've

> largely just poked holes in other people's ideas

> or questioned their motives. Time for some

> positive contributions alex_b

You did ask me if I could be sure of the future in 30-50 years. You're correct I cannot. However, remaining in the EU gives us (via our MEPs and our government) a say in every decision over that period. In most cases we would have a veto and in some cases a referendum would be likely. The key difference though would we would be considering a specific change to the staus quo (e.g. joining the Euro, Turkey joining the EU, an EU defence force) rather than a vague vote saying "not here".

As someone who voted remain my positive contribution is that we shouldn't leave the EU. I see no reason to appease (in the main) a bunch of nationalists who are blaming the EU for all our ills and who will never be happy with the outcome because leaving the EU will not make us richer, will not bring more jobs to this country, will not reduce the number of black people in our communities and will not bring back buying potatoes by the pound. If we must leave the EU I'd like to be a member of EFTA with an opt in to the customs union. I think it would be a pointless exercise and don't see the benefit vs where we are now but it would at least minimise the damage while fulfilling the mandate of leaving the EU.

[TheCat]

Thanks alex-!m but it's far too long for me to read...

..kidding....

I appreciate your responses, some of them are reasonable, some of them are just matters of opinion (I.e. I think 'criminally negligent' is a little of an exaggeration), some things I disagree as to how things will play out (I.e. I am a senior manager at a large investment bank, and if we are moving 25 percent of our staff, someone should probbaly have told me by now), some of them are not really addressing what I've said, but more what you think I said, or what other leavers have said (I.e. I have said repeatedly that I DO NOT want to reduce immigration,, i've also said that I don't think immigrants are a drain, so the repatriation clause is irrelevant to my arguement).

But overall I do thank you and appreciate your now substantive comments. I think you are perhaps slightly dismissive about the idea of voting against something becuase one doesnt like it. What's wrong with that? There's plenty of people who've just 'moved to california' to make their fortune. Many pages ago on this thread, I spoke about personal risk tolerance, and was mocked for it, but I maintain that this plays a big part in what level on uncertainty one is prepared to wear. This is perhaps a key difference between you and I...as on the more rationale discusion, there are many things that we would likely agree on.

Anyway. Bon weekend

[malumbu]

Good postings, thanks all, helps enrich my understanding, and I expect I'll be using some of the views, both those I agree with and those I don't. A better and more informed debate than on Question Time. Cheers.

[alex_b]

Cat - Thanks for the reply. A few quick thoughts:

I can't go into detail about staff movements, but in the banks I know very well the European regulators are insisting on a significant management and staff presence post-Brexit, they're not accepting simply brass plating into Paris or Dublin. Perhaps your part of the business is less exposed to the loss of passporting? This is leaving aside no-deal where the loss of GDPR equivalence will make working with European customers essentially impossible overnight.

I appreciate that your arguments for leaving are not identical to others particularly with respect to immigration. In fact that's my biggest problem with the whole process. You voted for a Brexit outcome that is incompatible with other people's Brexit outcomes; those of us who voted for the status quo by definition were all voting for the same immediate outcome. How do I reconcile your "pro-immigration brexit" with the far right's "repatriation brexit"? This is precisely the reason for being dismissive of voting against something because one doesn't like it, without a coherent alternative, it is simply a vote for chaos as we're now finding out.

I'd perhaps go even further and suggest that since "reasonable leavers" won their desired outcome on the back of others making arguments diametrically opposed to their supposed views (e.g. racism and xenophobia), they bear special responsibility to explain coherently how to square that circle and provide a Brexit that fulfils all of the incompatible promises they and their fellow travellers made.

Your point about personal risk tolerance is interesting. My view is that it is immoral for very well off people (like most MPs, particularly Rees-Mogg) who are much more able to absorb this downside risk to impose this on the rest of the country. This is particularly as Brexit was sold by most mainstream leave campaigners as a risk free bet ("the easiest deal in the world"). You might say "more fool them" but this is what is leading directly to the "brexit betrayal" narrative and it won't lead anywhere good.

[TheCat]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cat - Thanks for the reply. A few quick thoughts:

>

>

Fair points. I think my own 'mea culpa' is that I totally misjudged the post vote division. So the detailed discussion/informed public debate which we needed to have to get to that plan that you originally asked me about didn't happen. So hands up on that one.

Outside of that, I generally stick by my reasons at the time, but certainly take onbaord the comment that as a relatively comfortable, middle class dulwicher, I personally probably have more capacity to absorb a short term hit. It so perhaps my risk tolerance is higher by virtue of it not being as large of a risk. Impossible to be definitive on in anycase.

I get your point about being a 'reasonable leaver' who probbaly got what he wanted on the back of some other leavers being extreme or poorly informed. But equally I know personally many people who voted remain purely and solely becuase 'im not a racist' ...so to me that's showing a similar (albeit significantly less distasteful) lack of knowledge of some of the key issues. We could argue till the cows come home about who benefitted more from ignorant voters...but it wouldn't achieve anything. That said, I do think that if some portions of the remain campaign/lobby had tried early-on after the vote to engage with 'reasonable' leavers, instead of dismissing everyone who voted Leave as 'ignorant leavers', then we may actualy be in a better position today than we find ourselves.

[alex_b]

I just saw this article https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/european-medicines-agency-closes-london-office-with-loss-of-900-jobs-brexit. It makes me so sad to see so much talent and expertise be burned on the pyre of nationalism. Of course the 900 direct job losses will trigger additional losses for suppliers, contractors etc. Hardly the great Brexit dividend we were promised.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That said, I do think

> that if some portions of the remain campaign/lobby

> had tried early-on after the vote to engage with

> 'reasonable' leavers, instead of dismissing

> everyone who voted Leave as 'ignorant leavers',

> then we may actualy be in a better position today

> than we find ourselves.

I agree with most of the rest of what you say, but I think this is exactly opposite of what happened in reality. Every attempt by remainers to propose a compromise Brexit that reflected the 52/48 split has shifted the mid point to a more extreme position. Even pointing out the closeness of the vote prompted a "you lost, we won" response.

Hence 'soft Brexit' used to refer to EEA and 'hard Brexit' meant Canada. Now a 'soft Brexit' is seen as Canada and a 'hard Brexit' is no-deal! This hasn't been helped by May (who is fundamentally anti-immigrant and has interpreted Brexit as a Nationalist project) drawing her red lines very early and emboldening the more extreme Brexiteers with the "no deal is better than a bad deal" line.

I can't imagine what remainers could have done in the aftermath of the vote to achieve an EEA type deal. And of course what was promised by the various leave factions was unreconcilable and undeliverable, so no compromise was probably ever possible.

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> diable rouge Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > *Sticks hand up in the air*

> >

> > I'd like to ask Cat if he felt it wasn't

> possible

> > at the time of voting to have a detailed plan

> of

> > what Brexit entailed, does it now make sense to

> > have a second vote now that there is a detailed

> > plan?...

>

> Yes. It certainly does. But, in the interest of

> public harmony (which we have a distinct lack of

> already), I don't think it would be wise for one

> of the options to be..rescind article 50/remain

> (again not because I personally would cry if the

> result was reversed (remember i've said both

> options have their positives and negatives), but

> other leavers certainly would and I worry that a

> swing in the in vote would create significant

> social unrest - probably more than leaving). So it

> would probably be advisable to have a vote on

> options to Leave....ie may's deal, no deal or

> extend article 50....

Surprised to see you play the 'civil unrest' card, especially as one who has been advocating the so-called positives of No Deal which is commonly believed will lead to civil unrest and possibly deaths, and across a greater cross-section of the population too, not just a small minority of Yaxley-Lennon types opposed to a 2nd ref. It appears the Gov in it's preps for No Deal certainly think so as this snippet from the Sunday Times highlights...

Britain is preparing to declare a state of emergency and introduce martial law in the event of disorder after a no-deal Brexit, according to officials who say the Cobra emergency committee will be able to deploy the army to quell rioting.

That's quite a thing to say about the UK in 2019. It doesn't read like ''public harmony'' to me, it's more like we are at war.

And what do these threats of Leavers opposed to a 2nd ref turning to the far right and civil unrest say about Leavers? The Remain side after the ref didn't turn to extremes, they've embraced democracy, campaigned peacefully, and held huge marches without any trouble. If Brexit happens Remain will become Rejoin and the democratic campaign will continue. And when did we as a country start pandering to threats of extremism? Should we pander to Islamic extremists too?

Only having Leave options in a 2nd ref is some statement, and it also panders to this perceived threat of more extremism if we don't, even David Davis has said that '''When a democracy can't change it's mind it ceases to be a democracy''...

[malumbu]

COBR doesn't deploy the army, government/ministers do. COBR is a meeting room ie an inanimate object. What poppycock.

Incidentally poppycock and other old quaint English expressions will be reintroduced under an Act of Parliament after we leave Europe, and foreign expressions like mea culpa banned. We don't want any Latin, French or German words in our language. I understand that ministers are considering this as I type down in their bunker. Tootle pip. Tally ho. Chin up. B to B.