The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The red lines in her Mansion House speech were absolutely her choice, and she surprised even some of her own officials and supporters with them.

If we're talking semantics, sure, they were her choice, but what choice did she have considering the referendum was won on the back of Brexit meaning an end to EU immigration.

[meregreen]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

If we're talking semantics, sure, they were her choice, but what choice did she have considering the referendum was won on the back of Brexit meaning an end to EU immigration.

Except the referendum was not a binding one. It was advisory with regards to ascertaining the will of the electorate. Cameron could have taken on board the closeness of the vote and acted accordingly, ie, soft Brexit. But then that would have led to civil war in the Tory Party. We walked the hard Brexit route to accommodate one party’s internal splits. Now we’re all paying the price.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, meregreen said:

Except the referendum was not a binding one. It was advisory with regards to ascertaining the will of the electorate.

it wasn't binding, but the media made it seem like it was, and politicians did nothing to change that feeling either. 

[meregreen]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

it wasn't binding, but the media made it seem like it was, and politicians did nothing to change that feeling either. 

Correct. But the point is,there was no need to put those red lines in place. It was a self inflicted shackling of the country, to accommodate the head bangers in the Tory Party. 

[LondonLax]

The whole reason Brexit won was to end freedom of movement. The EU will not permit countries to pick which of the 'four freedoms' they will apply so there is no point proposing a soft Brexit that keeps the UK in the single market as it doesn't satisfy the requirement to end free movement of people and ultimately satisfies nobody. 

[meregreen]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

The whole reason Brexit won was to end freedom of movement. The EU will not permit countries to pick which of the 'four freedoms' they will apply so there is no point proposing a soft Brexit that keeps the UK in the single market as it doesn't satisfy the requirement to end free movement of people and ultimately satisfies nobody. 

The vote was close.l believe a soft Brexit, keeping us in the single market, would have moved some of the less committed Brexiters to accept it. The Norwegians have always shied away from full membership, but have accepted that accommodating free movement in order to be in the single market, is a compromise worth making. It would not have been a difficult case to make, given most Tory MPs actually voted remain. This was all about stopping the Tory Party splitting.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The whole reason Brexit won was to end freedom of movement

I’m not sure, I think another big reason was to remove the control from Brussels. 

As it turns out “we” wanted to get rid of their higher standards and cut corners.

[meregreen]

Just now, Genie said:

I’m not sure, I think another big reason was to remove the control from Brussels. 

As it turns out “we” wanted to get rid of their higher standards and cut corners.

Plus, not enough was made that we had the power, as do all members of the EU, to veto any new proposed laws we did not like. Control from Brussels was a myth, that should have been confronted more vigorously. 

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

I’m not sure, I think another big reason was to remove the control from Brussels. 

As it turns out “we” wanted to get rid of their higher standards and cut corners.

Oh for sure. Sovereignty and ending immigration.

The issue is that you cannot quantify sovereignty. You can with Immigration.

[Genie]

9 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Plus, not enough was made that we had the power, as do all members of the EU, to veto any new proposed laws we did not like. Control from Brussels was a myth, that should have been confronted more vigorously. 

Yes, David Cameron was happy for the EU to get the blame for decisions made by the UK government, or things that’s the UK could have veto’d but didn’t.

If he’d have been honest and told it how it really was then pressure and questions would have been asked of him which he dodged.

A massive amount of blame of this shit show lies with him.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

If we're talking semantics, sure, they were her choice, but what choice did she have considering the referendum was won on the back of Brexit meaning an end to EU immigration.

I'm sure we could go back 500 pages and see the same discussion. The major choice she absolutely had and messed up was to wait until these types of issues had been sorted out/voted on in Parliament and THEN trigger Article 50 - the choice was to work out what would fly, and then go for it, not to press the button and then **** about trying to work out what we actually wanted while the clock was running down.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

If we're talking semantics, sure, they were her choice, but what choice did she have considering the referendum was won on the back of Brexit meaning an end to EU immigration.

It's a difficult one. You can make the argument I suppose that the internal dynamics of the Conservative party, her need to get leave MPs on side and thin majority in the HoC, could only have led to her 'red lines' speech. I can see the logic of the argument. Similarly, I think you can also make the argument that had it been a leader prominently associated with the leave campaign - Johnson springs to mind - they would have had the credibility to pursue a softer form than she outlined in that speech.

But fundamentally she set the red lines, and she did so with no consultation of party, parliament or country, so ultimately she gets the blame for what those red lines necessitated.

[chrisp65]

It was basically too complex a decision to be left to people that have to play to two galleries.

It’s widely accepted that my offer of a benign dictatorship would have dealt with this far better.

 

[Genie]

Imagine how much cheaper it would have been to just pay Farage whatever it cost to just shut up about it.

[sidcow]

6 hours ago, Genie said:

Imagine how much cheaper it would have been to just pay Farage whatever it cost to just shut up about it.

Yep, a bag of chips and 2 bottles of vodka would have been a cheap price to pay. 

[bickster]

Snigger

Quote

Brexit-backing millionaire loses court fight over Ukip donations tax bill

HMRC assessed Arron Banks as owing just over £160,000 on almost £1 million in donations to the political party between October 2014 and March 2015.

Millionaire Brexit-backing businessman Arron Banks has lost his Court of Appeal fight over a six-figure inheritance tax bill on his donations to Ukip.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) assessed Mr Banks – one of the self-styled “Bad Boys of Brexit” – as owing just over £160,000 on almost £1 million in donations to Ukip between October 2014 and March 2015....

Indie

[Rolta]

14 hours ago, LondonLax said:

The whole reason Brexit won was to end freedom of movement. . 

Of the brexiters I know not a single one of them voted for this reason. Your statement is a massive stretch. Most people didn't know what they were voting for anyway. 

[bickster]

Quote

The European Union must stand ready to send aid to Britain when it is crippled by food and supplies shortages because of Brexit, the former prime minister of Finland has said.

Alexander Stubb, who unsuccessfully ran to be European Commission president in 2019, said the EU should help a stricken UK even though it was all Britain’s fault.

He said, "If the EU would play its cards right, it would offer assistance to the UK now or later when the supply of basic goods and services takes a turn for the worse.

“This is what friends do, even if the pain has been self-inflicted, stupid and unnecessary.”

Mr Stubb, who led Finland for 11 months and was the country’s finance minister, predicted the only way to save Britain would be for it to renew closer ties with the EU.

The former MEP and vice-president of the European Investment Bank suggested that the offer of help could tempt the UK back into the fold.

Mr Stubb’s comments echo a widely held view in Brussels that the fuel, supply and truck driver shortages that have hit the UK are a direct consequence of the decision to leave the EU and its Single Market.

EU diplomats claim Northern Ireland has not faced similar problems because a Brexit treaty keeps it within the Single Market.

Mr Stubb, who is well known for his predilection for Iron Man endurance contests, said that things were only going to get worse for the UK the longer it stayed away from its former EU allies.

"Sorry, but the situation in the UK is going to go from bad to worse with no respite in sight,” the 53-year-old said. 

Yahoo

[Xann]

Finland do make a lot of toilet roll.

 

They're also educating their people about suggestion and disinformation on social media and the wider web.

Backward Brexit Britain could have done with some of that.

You only need to look back in this thread to see how some eagerly consumed the dogshit they were spoonfed.

[HanoiVillan]

10 hours ago, Rolta said:

Of the brexiters I know not a single one of them voted for this reason. Your statement is a massive stretch. Most people didn't know what they were voting for anyway. 

Yes, I agree, and I would go further. 'The whole reason Brexit won was to end freedom of movement' is not just a stretch, it's actually wrong. The key issue was sovereignty, which was expressed in a number of ways, one of which was 'control of our borders'. That might have been the main thing people wanted sovereignty for - though I'm not even sure it was the main thing - but sovereignty was what was sought.