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

[Wainy316]

History will not look favourably on Brexit voters but it will at least forgive the ones that admit they were duped.

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

History will not look favourably on Brexit voters but it will at least forgive the ones that admit they were duped.

I’ll never understand the industries like fisherman and farmers for example. They already had it all. Some of them were paid by the EU NOT to actually do anything. The others had tariff and limit free trading with the worlds biggest market which was also on the doorstep, which also provided unlimited cheap labour. They were living the dream.

How on earth could so many of them think that leaving the EU would be better? How could it have got any better? 

[Davkaus]

 

Dare I say it, that alleged 2% price reduction on fish fingers is looking like spectacularly poor value.

[sidcow]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

 

Dare I say it, that alleged 2% price reduction on fish fingers is looking like spectacularly poor value.

Speak for yourself 

 

[Xann]

5 minutes ago, Genie said:

How on earth could so many of them think that leaving the EU would be better? How could it have got any better? 

New and better dealz!

[picicata]

18 minutes ago, Genie said:

I’ll never understand the industries like fisherman and farmers for example. They already had it all. Some of them were paid by the EU NOT to actually do anything. The others had tariff and limit free trading with the worlds biggest market which was also on the doorstep, which also provided unlimited cheap labour. They were living the dream.

How on earth could so many of them think that leaving the EU would be better? How could it have got any better? 

I think most thought the UK government would carry on paying them subsidies and thus they would have all the monies without the foreigners.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, Genie said:

I’ll never understand the industries like fisherman and farmers for example. They already had it all. Some of them were paid by the EU NOT to actually do anything. The others had tariff and limit free trading with the worlds biggest market which was also on the doorstep, which also provided unlimited cheap labour. They were living the dream.

How on earth could so many of them think that leaving the EU would be better? How could it have got any better? 

It's complicated.

Take fishermen. There are essentially almost two different industries  - there's the small boats, operating mostly in-shore and given quotas for how much fish, of which type they could catch and then there's the large trawlers operating further out to sea (also given quotas).

For the UK both those industries have been in long term decline and not without reason many of them believed that the EU and its fisheries policies was (at least in part) to blame. They also blamed massive foreign factory trawlers for hoovering up fish stocks and believed that they were being unfairly treated.

And then they were told that Brexit would mean British fishermen would regain all the rights to fish in British waters and foreign boats would be kept out.

That message (untrue as it was) is very appealing, from the perspective of a UK fisherman.

Farming has some similarities, too. The Common agricultural policy is a massive mess that has been extraordinarily difficult to get fixed, because of the power of the French farming lobby and its influence over the French Gov't who block meaningful change - it's a really good example of the EU not working. Because of the large French farms, subsidies disproportionally going to large landowners and smaller farmers, who need more help again being disadvantaged as a consequence. Then the UK Gov't promised they'd replace al lthe EU subsidies (but haven't).

[Lichfield Dean]

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's complicated.

Take fishermen. There are essentially almost two different industries  - there's the small boats, operating mostly in-shore and given quotas for how much fish, of which type they could catch and then there's the large trawlers operating further out to sea (also given quotas).

For the UK both those industries have been in long term decline and not without reason many of them believed that the EU and its fisheries policies was (at least in part) to blame. They also blamed massive foreign factory trawlers for hoovering up fish stocks and believed that they were being unfairly treated.

And then they were told that Brexit would mean British fishermen would regain all the rights to fish in British waters and foreign boats would be kept out.

That message (untrue as it was) is very appealing, from the perspective of a UK fisherman.

Farming has some similarities, too. The Common agricultural policy is a massive mess that has been extraordinarily difficult to get fixed, because of the power of the French farming lobby and its influence over the French Gov't who block meaningful change - it's a really good example of the EU not working. Because of the large French farms, subsidies disproportionally going to large landowners and smaller farmers, who need more help again being disadvantaged as a consequence. Then the UK Gov't promised they'd replace al lthe EU subsidies (but haven't).

Yep. Most reasonable people know that the EU isn't perfect and that there are many things that could be improved. And many people were fully aware that this government were totally incapable of devising a Brexit that could in any way work even remotely successfully. And that is why on balance it was clear that remaining in an imperfect union was always better than the alternative.

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Yep. Most reasonable people know that the EU isn't perfect and that there are many things that could be improved. And many people were fully aware that this government were totally incapable of devising a Brexit that could in any way work even remotely successfully. And that is why on balance it was clear that remaining in an imperfect union was always better than the alternative.

Exactly.

It was clear having better access to waters to catch fish, but lose access to the market to sell them was a massive glaring red flag.

It basically comes down to the fact people genuinely believed we’d retain all the member perks and also enjoy the freedom of not being a member. 

[CVByrne]

31 minutes ago, Genie said:

Exactly.

It was clear having better access to waters to catch fish, but lose access to the market to sell them was a massive glaring red flag.

It basically comes down to the fact people genuinely believed we’d retain all the member perks and also enjoy the freedom of not being a member. 

Yes, because they believed the lies they were told

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yes, because they believed the lies they were told

Yep.

No downsides

Easiest deals in history

etc etc etc 

Counter / realistic concerns were literally laughed at. 

People bought it all. 

[Genie]

I think the only way forward would be single market access, but under some other special name. Joining the existing schemes is all tainted goods now.
We need the same “deal” of paying for membership that allows access to buying and selling but make it look like we got a great deal out of the EU.

If we’re paying £10b a year to boost the economy by £40b (made up numbers for illustration) and we don’t have Brussels telling us what we can and can’t do then I think the public will accept this “DEAL”.

[bickster]

47 minutes ago, Genie said:

I think the only way forward would be single market access, but under some other special name. Joining the existing schemes is all tainted goods now.
We need the same “deal” of paying for membership that allows access to buying and selling but make it look like we got a great deal out of the EU.

If we’re paying £10b a year to boost the economy by £40b (made up numbers for illustration) and we don’t have Brussels telling us what we can and can’t do then I think the public will accept this “DEAL”.

Isn't there a report out yesterday that says it's costing us £100b a year to not have access to the market. I think it may have been lost in the Johnson stuff, iirc its the governments own figures too

[Genie]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

Isn't there a report out yesterday that says it's costing us £100b a year to not have access to the market. I think it may have been lost in the Johnson stuff, iirc its the governments own figures too

Yes, I saw that.

Someone needs to do a “UK deal” (like Norway deal or Canada deal”) which basically gets us SM access without it looking like we’ve gone cap in hand. If it has its own name then even better for the flag shaggers to celebrate winning.

If we pay £20b a year to realise £100b then everyone should be happy.

Maybe this is what Labour are planning to do. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Genie

[bickster]

titter ye not

 

[Xann]

 

[Genie]

Is that plane for Rwanda still sat on the tarmac? 

[sidcow]

5 hours ago, Genie said:

I think the only way forward would be single market access, but under some other special name. Joining the existing schemes is all tainted goods now.
We need the same “deal” of paying for membership that allows access to buying and selling but make it look like we got a great deal out of the EU.

If we’re paying £10b a year to boost the economy by £40b (made up numbers for illustration) and we don’t have Brussels telling us what we can and can’t do then I think the public will accept this “DEAL”.

The Great British Bulldog White Cliff Union Jack Waterloo Deal. 

[Genie]

14 minutes ago, sidcow said:

The Great British Bulldog White Cliff Union Jack Waterloo Deal. 

[StanBalaban]

It's all well and good catching fish in your own waters, but who are you going to sell them to without trade deals with the markets that buy those fish.

When this is pointed out (for the umpteenth time) to the Brexit dimwit June Mummery, here's her reasoned response to a small thread.