Brexit - Has anybody actually changed their minds?

[RonnieTodger]

If there was a second referendum, you'd hope it'd be a comprehensive result, rather than a 4% margin

[what?]

14 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

If there was a second referendum, you'd hope it'd be a comprehensive result, rather than a 4% margin

I think the chances of that are pretty remote unfortunately. The demographic change from the young people who'll now have a vote could prove decisive but I wouldn't expect a landslide shift one way or the other. Mainly because remain has spent the last two years telling leavers they were either racist or too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions. It's not exactly a strategy to win hearts and minds. 

 

I would love remain to win but I just can't see it happening, not with the usual suspects leading the campaign.

[Foxxed]

I've always very clearly equivocated, of course. But I would change my mind if:

• We had a good plan (I'm excluding both the free-trade utopia or the socialist utopia plans)
• We weren't surrounded by the EU's single market
• Around 50% of our imports and exports weren't dependent on the single market
• The main part of our economy (the banking sector) thought this was a good idea
• We had a plan to cooperate with the countries we've historically been at war with
• Every single extremist right-wing party didn't support it and were emboldened by it

[Guest MattP]

This is exactly why we should have been completely serious about this from the start.

 

[oxford blue]

"It is the exact definition of democracy to give the people a voice and that is a continuous voice not a single one off voice, Enough has changed since the first referendum to ask the people again and I don’t understand why you would deny democracy? There are 2 shit options on the table how do you decide between them if you don’t ask the people?" (quote from "Captain")

 

It was clear on both sides the refererundum was a one-off vote for the foreseeable future. There was a referendum in 1975 about staying in the 'Common Market'.  The developmment of the EU - into a quasi-political organisation - did not trigger a further referundum. Even now, we do not know the outcome:even of a transitional arrangement is agreed, then we will not know details of leaving terms until this is negotiated at end of transitional period.  If there was a referendum should not the question be related to different leave options?

 

The electorate voted to leave. The problem is that it has to be agreed by Parliament where - it is commonly accepted - 75-80% want to remain. 

 

You say demodracy is continuous voice - should we have general elections every year? Or if there another referundum, what triggers a further one. Should it become best of 3, or 5?

 

Personally I think May's deal is a good compromise between all the different factions. The backstop is aproblem for some Tories and the DUP, but polls show the NI voters (who voted to remain) actually like it.

 

If there was to be another referundum the time would be a few years after leaving - if we leave (I have always thought it was a "Hotel California" ) - when it is clearer whether benefits or otherwise are in the natioanl interest. 

•  

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

LEAVE. LEAVE. LEAVE. DEAL OR NO DEAL.

[Captain...]

12 hours ago, MattP said:

You didn't answer my question - why would any leave voter trust Remain MP's to honour the result of a second referendum? 

 

You let parliament do its job - if May's deal is voted down it leads to all sorts of different scenarios.

 

How often do you think we should should be asking people about this to get a continued voice? Every 2 years? Every 5?

 

Do you think the EU would tolerate that?

 

Why does anyone trust any MPs to do anything? This current lot are a disgrace on both sides.

 

If you left parliament to do its job as representatives of the people they will vote to remain and would never have got this far. This was the people’s voice/Cameron’s folly and the people should have the final say.

 

As for how often, it doesn’t really matter it has been shown during this sorry mess we can activate article 50 and cancel it and remain in the EU. I would say that if this piss poor attempt at leaving results in no Brexit Labour would be within their rights to put in their manifesto they will trigger article 50 and have a go (either with or without a referendum). The Tories were given a mandate to get us out. If they fail then Labour should be able to try.

[AS78UK]

Yes

[Mayofox]

Another great plan in the pipeline. Minimum  salary of £30k required for EU  migrants into the UK.  So you'll be providing your own junior doctors, will you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bovril]

39 minutes ago, Mayofox said:

Another great plan in the pipeline. Minimum  salary of £30k required for EU  migrants into the UK.  So you'll be providing your own junior doctors, will you?

 

I love how Tories now believe that immigration should be completely government-planned rather than dependent on market forces.

[SMX11]

53 minutes ago, bovril said:

I love how Tories now believe that immigration should be completely government-planned rather than dependent on market forces.

You should know that the Conservatives only pay lip service to free markets. They soon show their authoritarian interventionist streak whenever they hold power.

 

I am not against a skills based immigration system due to the welfare state we currently have but I think 30k is rather arbitrary.

[yorkie1999]

I wouldn't be surprised if all this posturing and in party fighting wasn't all just a giant game to force another referendum and make it look so bad for the country in terms of leaving the eu that a massive swing to remain would be the result. All seems a bit fishy to me.

[Gerard]

On 13/12/2018 at 13:40, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Voted leave would now remain.

 

Well done, you're a bigger man than most. 

 

I find it amazing how many people are holding on to their leave vote after the shitshow Brexit has become.

 

[Gerard]

On 14/12/2018 at 09:11, MattP said:

It wasn't - but it was explicitly said by leaders of the leave and remain campaigns.

 

More Leaver lies. 

 

 

[Gerard]

On 18/12/2018 at 06:56, koop. said:

As the 5th largest economy in the world, as a country that has a very strong say on the world scene, I am baffled as to why we didn't just leave and then tell the EU to come to us and we will decide if the deal they want is ok. Why have we gone into negotiations almost begging and losing all credibility. Absolute joke. 

 

Well actually I do know......government wanted to remain from the off.

 Soon to be 7th

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6510139/UK-economy-slip-7th-biggest-world-2019-PwC.html

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

More Leaver lies. 

 

 

 

There are more than can comfortably be copied and pasted:

 

https://brexitlies.com/

[Guest MattP]

56 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

More Leaver lies. 

 

 

I can't believe your lot are still pushing this - it's been totally debunked here by the brilliant Andrew Neil.

 

If you can't be arsed to watch it, which I suspect....

 

Not a single quote in your video was in full, not a single one was during the referendum campaign and one of them was wasn't even from this decade

[Strokes]

54 minutes ago, MattP said:

I can't believe your lot are still pushing this

2 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

 

 

[Sampson]

I voted Remain and probably would do again on another vote, but I am sympathetic to a lot of the leave side and it think it would be a closer vote in my mind this time than it was in the original, but I think I'd just still vote remain.

I think the EU's general tenants of free-market capitalist Economics and free trade are applaudable and they way it's helped nurture the former Eastern-block countries as well as post-Franco Spain has been huge. The peace and prosperity and bringing tens of millions of people out of poverty it has brought to countries like Spain, the Czech Republic and East Germany have been incredible achievements and the way it has made wars almost unthinkable between some previously bitterly antagonistic nations such as France and Germany or France and Austria also been an incredible achievement. And I do think it's succeeded in a lot of ways.

 

However, particularly in the past decade or two, there's no doubt that the EU has showed some pretty stark signs of movement towards authoritarianism and anti-democratic measures and even removing democratically elected governments. And I've always thought a good philosophy to uphold is "imagine your current government systems if the worst possible person you could imagine got in charge of them" and the way a lot of the safeguards for democracy have started to corrode away in the upper-escalations of the EU is very concerning and I do wonder at what point we need to get to before thinking "if someone (who would have been unelected) with a Mao/Hitler/Stalin/Cromwell-bent got in Tusk or Junker's position now, they would have some very scary power to do some very scary things" in a way I don't think they would have in the 1980s when this was still the EEC.

So for now, I'd still be remain, but with definite huge concerns about the EU and some of the decisions and directions it's been heading in in recent times.

As for the 2nd referendum, I don't think many have changed their mind and I don't think there's really enough of a clamouring for it (and even less for a general election, which is the last thing I think anyone wants right now, after the last one and I'd expect whichever part who triggered it would be heavily punished by the electorate for its pointlessness, exactly as May and the Tories were last time out). But there's definitely a lot of people in the London/media bubble who seem to expect another referendum would be a routine win for Remain who are definitely a bit eye-rolling.

Edited 19 December 2018 by Sampson

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Gerard said:

Well done, you're a bigger man than most. 

 

I find it amazing how many people are holding on to their leave vote after the shitshow Brexit has become.

 

No evidence he ever said this.

 

Ironically though with 3 rep points it does show how easily it is to fool the folk. 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-mark-twain-say-its-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them-that-they-have-been-fooled/

[Alf Bentley]

49 minutes ago, MattP said:

I can't believe your lot are still pushing this - it's been totally debunked here by the brilliant Andrew Neil.

 

If you can't be arsed to watch it, which I suspect....

 

Not a single quote in your video was in full, not a single one was during the referendum campaign and one of them was wasn't even from this decade

 

 

You are right to say that the video posted by @Gerard is misleading. It gives the implicit impression that during the referendum campaign Leavers were saying we should stay in the Single Market.

Neil does indeed correctly debunk that idea. Many of the clips of Brexiteers date back months or years. If Open Britain had wanted to be honest about that, they could have attached dates to the clips. It is also clear that Open Britain cut the statements so as to give a distorted impression - as Neil clearly shows.

 

However, isn't it interesting that over months or years preceding the campaign, many leading Brexiteers were indeed arguing that we should stay in the Single Market?

 

More importantly, while the Open Britain video is slanted propaganda, the argument that McGrory uses in his interview with Neil is absolutely correct: the Brexiteers categorically did NOT clearly advocate leaving the Single Market either. Individual Brexiteers, such as Gove, did clearly advocate leaving. Towards the end of the campaign, under pressure Boris agreed with Gove's comments (having avoided the question previously). At some point, Leadsom said we'd "almost certainly" leave. In general, though, Brexiteers tried to avoid giving a clear answer to the question - presumably because they feared that openly calling for us to leave the SM would sink their campaign.  

 

Remainers like Cameron and Osborne claimed that leaving the EU inevitably meant leaving the SM. But that was blatant, dishonest propaganda seeking to cajole voters into the Remain camp. It is clearly untrue that leaving the EU means leaving the SM as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are in the SM. Relying on the dishonest propaganda of bullshitting Remainers isn't much of a case for Brexiteers.

 

Most importantly, the claim that Brexiteers made their intention of leaving the SM clear during the campaign is propaganda as dishonest as that presented by Open Britain.

If not.....

- Challenge 1: Here's the Vote Leave web site: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/  Please show me where they clearly advocate leaving the SM. I can't see it - yet if they clearly advocated such a major policy, it would be prominent surely? They criticised aspects of the SM and said we'll continue to "have access to" it (meaningless - everyone has access, it's the terms that matter).

- Challenge 2: Post some video footage dating from the campaign showing leading Brexiteers other than Gove clearly calling for us to leave the SM.....if the stance was clear, there should be lots of such footage. I'm not talking about bullshitting Remainers or mealy-mouthed words under pressure from Boris or Leadsom.

 

Maybe many leading Brexiteers did believe that we should leave the SM, but if so they obfuscated and misled voters. There is no mandate to leave the SM - and the Brexiteer case that there is a mandate is as dishonest as the case for the opposite made in that Open Britain video. It is an anti-democratic attempt to steamroller the nation into something that nationalists and neo-liberals want but that the public did NOT vote for.

[Alf Bentley]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

No evidence he ever said this.

 

Ironically though with 3 rep points it does show how easily it is to fool the folk. 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-mark-twain-say-its-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them-that-they-have-been-fooled/

 

 

I put my hands up (partly) as one of those who repped the quote. Though what I approved of was the quote, not Twain saying it. I'd have repped it if it had been a quote from Doris the Dinner Lady.

 

Mind you, your link suggests that Twain did say something similar, even if there's no proof of him using those precise words.

 

I see there are only 2 rep points for it now - has some person shamefacedly removed theirs? 

 

[Guest MattP]

29 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

I put my hands up (partly) as one of those who repped the quote. Though what I approved of was the quote, not Twain saying it. I'd have repped it if it had been a quote from Doris the Dinner Lady.

 

Mind you, your link suggests that Twain did say something similar, even if there's no proof of him using those precise words.

 

I see there are only 2 rep points for it now - has some person shamefacedly removed theirs? 

 

I didn't even check whom it was - bit I bloody hate that video! 

[Guest MattP]

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

You are right to say that the video posted by @Gerard is misleading. It gives the implicit impression that during the referendum campaign Leavers were saying we should stay in the Single Market.

Neil does indeed correctly debunk that idea. Many of the clips of Brexiteers date back months or years. If Open Britain had wanted to be honest about that, they could have attached dates to the clips. It is also clear that Open Britain cut the statements so as to give a distorted impression - as Neil clearly shows.

 

However, isn't it interesting that over months or years preceding the campaign, many leading Brexiteers were indeed arguing that we should stay in the Single Market?

 

More importantly, while the Open Britain video is slanted propaganda, the argument that McGrory uses in his interview with Neil is absolutely correct: the Brexiteers categorically did NOT clearly advocate leaving the Single Market either. Individual Brexiteers, such as Gove, did clearly advocate leaving. Towards the end of the campaign, under pressure Boris agreed with Gove's comments (having avoided the question previously). At some point, Leadsom said we'd "almost certainly" leave. In general, though, Brexiteers tried to avoid giving a clear answer to the question - presumably because they feared that openly calling for us to leave the SM would sink their campaign.  

 

Remainers like Cameron and Osborne claimed that leaving the EU inevitably meant leaving the SM. But that was blatant, dishonest propaganda seeking to cajole voters into the Remain camp. It is clearly untrue that leaving the EU means leaving the SM as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are in the SM. Relying on the dishonest propaganda of bullshitting Remainers isn't much of a case for Brexiteers.

 

Most importantly, the claim that Brexiteers made their intention of leaving the SM clear during the campaign is propaganda as dishonest as that presented by Open Britain.

If not.....

- Challenge 1: Here's the Vote Leave web site: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/  Please show me where they clearly advocate leaving the SM. I can't see it - yet if they clearly advocated such a major policy, it would be prominent surely? They criticised aspects of the SM and said we'll continue to "have access to" it (meaningless - everyone has access, it's the terms that matter).

- Challenge 2: Post some video footage dating from the campaign showing leading Brexiteers other than Gove clearly calling for us to leave the SM.....if the stance was clear, there should be lots of such footage. I'm not talking about bullshitting Remainers or mealy-mouthed words under pressure from Boris or Leadsom.

 

Maybe many leading Brexiteers did believe that we should leave the SM, but if so they obfuscated and misled voters. There is no mandate to leave the SM - and the Brexiteer case that there is a mandate is as dishonest as the case for the opposite made in that Open Britain video. It is an anti-democratic attempt to steamroller the nation into something that nationalists and neo-liberals want but that the public did NOT vote for.

I think I mentioned last week I've reconciled myself to even a Norway type Brexit now satisfies the result of the referendum - partly because of the craziness on both sides.

 

I can't give you an example of VL giving that assurance of it and I won't try.

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think I mentioned last week I've reconciled myself to even a Norway type Brexit now satisfies the result of the referendum - partly because of the craziness on both sides.

 

I can't give you an example of VL giving that assurance of it and I won't try.

 

At least part of me thinks that Parliament requesting a Norway-type Brexit would be the best outcome now - and I'm sure the EU would agree an Article 50 extension and deal on that basis.

Some solution would still have to be found for the Irish border issue, but some sort of Customs Union/Arrangement or minimum checks on trade across the Irish Sea are options.

 

Obviously, I still think that Remain would be the best outcome. But that would now only be obtainable (if at all) via a high-risk, highly-divisive referendum. I'd expect that to be very damaging and polarising, up to and including violence, potentially deaths. I'd opt for that risk ahead of all that a disorderly No Deal means, and maybe a referendum would turn out OK.....but it is a big risk.

 

As for the arguments during the (first) referendum, I increasingly see both camps as nests of vipers with all the lies and dishonest propaganda.....possibly another argument against a second referendum, as who's to stop that happening again? 

Edited 19 December 2018 by Alf Bentley