GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

OK, I've been looking for a measured article that helps with the Brexit division. This is quite good:

"For many of the Remain and Leave supporters the details of the functioning of the EU were of marginal significance. For many Remainers the EU was a symbol of, and had a symbolic value as, a positive, inclusive, post-national, unchauvinistic form of politics whereas for many Leavers it symbolised a loss of national autonomy and British pride and caused, or coincided with, economic decline and marginalisation."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/09/20/eu-membership-was-a-cultural-symbol-which-remainers-approved-and-leavers-disliked/

I think it means for many leavers, they were not part of the dream. Both sides were (and are) driven by idealism and emotion - more than the facts. In which case, one can see why it's so hard to resolve and reconcile both sides.

However, now of course leavers are left with the new dream they wanted. Remainers, like me, will do everything they can to point out the losses. It's very sad, and I hold our government 100% responsible for the outcome.

This reminds me of....

http://disq.us/p/1mbd6c5

I voted leave, not because I wanted the UK to throw itself off the economic cliff, but because I could not endorse the EU's direction towards a single European state. I believe Juncker's speech the other day contained elements planned for a UK 'Remain' vote, and how the UK was behind the European dream. Alas, it was not to be. But I certainly have no objection to the four freedoms, and centralising regulations in areas relating to trade is a good thing. 28 nations can trade freely amongst each other given a level playing field.

That doesn't need a parliament building (or two), a flag, a national anthem. It doesn't need its own army, police force, finance minister or even its own currency.

But there is a group of people, who 'just want out', and have no thought about what 'out' means. The people who say "we voted to leave, so lets leave already" - read Margaret Pickbourne's reply to Robert Peston's Facebook post form yesterday: a lady in her 70s, and isn't interested in trade deals. It is clear she, and many many like her, voted Leave because of social injustices caused by domestic policy - the very things that are nothing to do with being in the EU. Do they really believe Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are on their side - they are the very people for whom hard Brexit will be an outstanding success. One thing is for sure is that the UK's net EU contributions will not end up fixing the food bank and childhood poverty problems. Those 'nasty' bankers, who earn so much money (and so pay so so much tax) will just be doing so for the German/Irish/French governments instead.

It is these people who make me think that Remain would have been the lesser of two evils. I didn't vote for economic suicide. I didn't vote for a parliamentary land-grab of powers. I have a real fear for the social situation that the Leave vote leaves us in. And when hard Brexit comes crashing down and presenting a nasty dose of reality, who will be the government's new "blamecatcher" to replace the EU when the people are rioting on the streets. I am almost ashamed that my Leave vote is counted the same as theirs and that I am tarred with the same brush. Their views don't represent mine.

But as this blog has reported before, we voted for a departure and not a destination. And that destination looks very different to different people. I've very much on the Flexcit bus, but for some people that bus is heading for the White Cliffs of Dover and straight off the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jonb2   
7 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

This reminds me of....

http://disq.us/p/1mbd6c5

 

 

That's very good Dave. I have read his increasingly critical articles - it seems he was a single-issue leaver. Which, to me, is a bit daft as surely he could have anticipated the whole package going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

C'mon, Jeremy Clarkson isn't a racist - he just plays one on TV ;)

Which is evidenced by his support for the E.U. My jaw hit the floor when he spoke out about being a Europhile before the referendum.

The logic of the remainer argument is simple - 

A remainer racist is not a racist, come on .. 

A leaver has to be a racist, anything else and the remainer brain explodes .. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

What is flexit?

Myself & @Sheeple Splinter have been talking about it on here for a many months...The Flexcit Pamphlet.  There is also the full 400 page version..

There's an hour long podcast on it too..

https://audioboom.com/posts/6311910-ep-104-pete-north-from-the-leave-alliance-says-flexcit-is-the-uk-s-only-hope

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

Myself & @Sheeple Splinter have been talking about it on here for a many months...The Flexcit Pamphlet.  There is also the full 400 page version..

There's an hour long podcast on it too..

https://audioboom.com/posts/6311910-ep-104-pete-north-from-the-leave-alliance-says-flexcit-is-the-uk-s-only-hope

Sum it up in two or three sentences. As considered as it may be; what is the elevator pitch? Sell it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Sum it up in two or three sentences. As considered as it may be; what is the elevator pitch? Sell it to me.

Blimey...Under Flexcit, Brexit is a process, not an event.  It sees that the "Norway" option is really the only viable way of leaving the EU without causing catastrophic damage to the economy.  Once the UK has left under EFTA/EEA, then the work goes into transforming the single market from being the sole competence of the EU, to an organisation such as UNECE.  The main problem with the EEA, is that the SM is a competence of the EU, even though around 80% of the single market acquis consists of global rules, created by UNECE, Codex, OECD et al.  The idea is to take the "middle man" (EU) out of the equation, and go straight to source, with an organisation, such as UNECE controlling the SM, where its rules can be farmed out via EFTA states and to the EU in equal measure.  The UK of course would have access to the top table (likes Norway currently does), and would have key votes in all major (global) decisions.

Along with this, is the Harrogate Agenda http://harrogateagenda.org.uk/, which seeks to transform British politics, whereby, rather than tinkering around the edges with PR, et al that the people have the overall vote on all major decisions - such as entering into treaties, taxation and spending, and so on.

There are six main steps, and I've only focused on two, but you get the jist (I hope)...

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riedquat   
1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

OK, I've been looking for a measured article that helps with the Brexit division. This is quite good:

"For many of the Remain and Leave supporters the details of the functioning of the EU were of marginal significance. For many Remainers the EU was a symbol of, and had a symbolic value as, a positive, inclusive, post-national, unchauvinistic form of politics whereas for many Leavers it symbolised a loss of national autonomy and British pride and caused, or coincided with, economic decline and marginalisation."

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/09/20/eu-membership-was-a-cultural-symbol-which-remainers-approved-and-leavers-disliked/

I think it means for many leavers, they were not part of the dream. Both sides were (and are) driven by idealism and emotion - more than the facts. In which case, one can see why it's so hard to resolve and reconcile both sides.

That sounds like a pretty accurate view of it I think. Similar points can be made about a great number of issues.

The lesson about facts needs to be extended though, I believe (and I've said this often enough before, but hey, has anyone in this thread got anything new left to say by now?) - they're not as important as some people think. Facts are a tool, nothing more or less. You need the tools to get the job that you want to do done, and using the wrong tool might result in a botched job that's worse than what you started with, but they do not inform you about what jobs are worth doing. Emotion is normally a much more convincing argument about whether or not we should do something like Brexit, because emotional reasons (and to a lesser extent idealism) are ultimately what decide whether our lives are any good or not. You need the right tools to fulfill your emotional needs, but that's all. Those who trumpet facts as a justification in their own right are really missing the point. Using them to say "this won't get you what you want" is one thing, but to pretend they determine what's worth doing is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was said three years ago...

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85068

..and today...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/20/us-airlines-aviation-regulations-post-brexit-open-skies-agreement-eu

..and John Redwood has said that its "business as usual" on Brexit day, under WTO terms...

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dave Beans said:

Blimey...Under Flexcit, Brexit is a process, not an event.  It sees that the "Norway" option is really the only viable way of leaving the EU without causing catastrophic damage to the economy.  Once the UK has left under EFTA/EEA, then the work goes into transforming the single market from being the sole competence of the EU, to an organisation such as UNECE.  The main problem with the EEA, is that the SM is a competence of the EU, even though around 80% of the single market acquis consists of global rules, created by UNECE, Codex, OECD et al.  The idea is to take the "middle man" (EU) out of the equation, and go straight to source, with an organisation, such as UNECE controlling the SM, where its rules can be farmed out via EFTA states and to the EU in equal measure.  The UK of course would have access to the top table (likes Norway currently does), and would have key votes in all major (global) decisions.

Along with this, is the Harrogate Agenda http://harrogateagenda.org.uk/, which seeks to transform British politics, whereby, rather than tinkering around the edges with PR, et al that the people have the overall vote on all major decisions - such as entering into treaties, taxation and spending, and so on.

There are six main steps, and I've only focused on two, but you get the jist (I hope)...

Thanks.

FWIW you need something punchy to hook the reader in; and that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.