Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Katsumoto]

It would be madness to stay in the customs union after leaving the political organisation of the EU, because we would no longer have any influence on our own trade policy. The decisions for our trade would be made in a room we’re not in. Madness.

Whether it would be madness or not to leave the customs union wasn't what was being discussed. You claimed the official Leave campaign made it clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the customs union, which as I asserted previously doesn't hold true.

[Aexodus]

Leaving the EU means leaving all EU institutions.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Leaving the EU means leaving all EU institutions.

To some factions of 'Leave' indeed. But not all, and that's the key issue with the mandate that we're having politically.

For instance few people consider Norway or Switzerland to be part of the EU (Unless we're going into neo-imperialist arguments ).

As an extra aside too, the we have certain brexiteers wanting to leave the ECHR, which is nothing to do with the EU itself (Though every EU member state has signed up to it and the EU itself has an article promising to abide by that court's rulings). The 'scope' of the brexit mandate varies both ways and is incredibly contentious as it is not as simple as 'leave all institutions' and we'll be independent (we won't as i've described, trade deals for instance with anyone do not work that way at all).

[Katsumoto]

Leaving the EU means leaving all EU institutions.

Do you understand that this is your opinion and it doesn't actually address the point that the leave campaign was not clear about leaving the customs union? If leaving the EU meant leaving all EU institutions, it was not made as clear as you claimed, which is the point I'm getting at: the vote to leave was not unambiguous. As Dante says, even now there people who don't think leaving the EU means leaving all EU institutions.

[Cope]

Do you understand that this is your opinion and it doesn't actually address the point that the leave campaign was not clear about leaving the customs union? If leaving the EU meant leaving all EU institutions, it was not made as clear as you claimed, which is the point I'm getting at: the vote to leave was not unambiguous. As Dante says, even now there people who don't think leaving the EU means leaving all EU institutions.

The most significant positions of the leave campaign were predicated upon the United Kingdom leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. These positions were not only discussed at length but they were acknowledged by factions on all sides of the debate. The argument that leaving the ESM and the EUCU weren't explicit options on the ballot (and so cannot be assumed to have been voted for) is a desperate appeal to semantics: you might as well argue that because the leave date wasn't specified either, it wasn't clear that the departure was intended for this century. It isn't mere coincidence that the only people suggesting that "the vote to leave was not unambiguous" are the same people who want to frustrate the entire process to the point of cancellation.

[Katsumoto]

The most significant positions of the leave campaign were predicated upon the United Kingdom leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. These positions were not only discussed at length but they were acknowledged by factions on all sides of the debate.

Were they? Please show me where. As I've mentioned already 'customs union' isn't even mentioned on the Vote Leave website.

According to Full Fact:

"The customs union was rarely mentioned by Leave campaigners before the referendum. There were generally calls for the UK to have an independent trade policy, though messages about specific trading arrangements weren’t always consistent."

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was...on-referendum/

It isn't mere coincidence that the only people suggesting that "the vote to leave was not unambiguous" are the same people who want to frustrate the entire process to the point of cancellation.

You'd be better off proving how the vote to leave wasn't ambiguous rather than resorting to flawed assumptions about your interlocutors.

[Jom]

The most significant positions of the leave campaign were predicated upon the United Kingdom leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. These positions were not only discussed at length but they were acknowledged by factions on all sides of the debate. The argument that leaving the ESM and the EUCU weren't explicit options on the ballot (and so cannot be assumed to have been voted for) is a desperate appeal to semantics: you might as well argue that because the leave date wasn't specified either, it wasn't clear that the departure was intended for this century. It isn't mere coincidence that the only people suggesting that "the vote to leave was not unambiguous" are the same people who want to frustrate the entire process to the point of cancellation.

Again, this is why the referendum as badly designed. And you're right: there was nothing on the ballot paper which dictated a timeline for triggering article 50 (with Vote Leave saying on their website that article 50 may not even need to be triggered), but the two arguments are not comparable: it's common sense that the democratic mandate from the referendum would expire fairly soon if article 50 was never triggered, whereas it's decisively not clear what leaving the EU means, as no one has ever done it before, and at least one of the institutions you insist we must also leave because of the referendum has nothing to do with the free movement of people, which was the prime reason why people voted to leave. It's not those who want to seek clarification's fault that the question and choices were ill-conceived.

[Infidel144]

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

Yep. Real ambiguous.

[Jom]

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

Yep. Real ambiguous.

Care to explain what leaving the EU means then? Because Norway's not a member of the EU.

[Infidel144]

Care to explain what leaving the EU means then?

Leave:
depart from, go away from, go from, withdraw from, retire from, take oneself off from, exit from, take one's leave of, pull out of, quit, be gone from, decamp from, disappear from, abandon, vacate, absent oneself from, evacuate

...... the EU

Because Norway's not a member of the EU.

So what.

[Jom]

Leave:
depart from, go away from, go from, withdraw from, retire from, take oneself off from, exit from, take one's leave of, pull out of, quit, be gone from, decamp from, disappear from, abandon, vacate, absent oneself from, evacuate

...... the EU


So what.

So... the number one reported issue by at least one major poll into why people voted leave was immigration. Norway is not in the EU, but still signs up to free movement of people via its membership of the single market. With that in mind, can you again explain what leaving the EU means? Because it's perfectly possible to leave the EU, but still remain a member of the single market, which is not what a fair proportion of leave voters would want to happen. However, you are still by definition outside the EU. See the problem?

[Infidel144]

So... the number one reported issue by at least one major poll into why people voted leave was immigration. Norway is not in the EU, but still signs up to free movement of people via its membership of the single market.

Is the single market part of the EU?

With that in mind, can you again explain what leaving the EU means?

Leave:
depart from, go away from, go from, withdraw from, retire from, take oneself off from, exit from, take one's leave of, pull out of, quit, be gone from, decamp from, disappear from, abandon, vacate, absent oneself from, evacuate

Because it's perfectly possible to leave the EU, but still remain a member of the single market, which is not what a fair proportion of leave voters would want to happen. However, you are still by definition outside the EU. See the problem?

No.

[Jom]

Is the single market part of the EU?


Leave:
depart from, go away from, go from, withdraw from, retire from, take oneself off from, exit from, take one's leave of, pull out of, quit, be gone from, decamp from, disappear from, abandon, vacate, absent oneself from, evacuate


No.

It's an EU policy, yes.

Okay, I'll explain the problem to you: as I've just demonstrated, you can be outside the EU but still subscribe to parts of EU policy à la Norway. Right now, we don't know what vision for the UK people who voted leave had when they did so. We've got hints here and there like the polling I mentioned earlier, but without some sort of confirmatory vote, the mandate from the 2016 referendum seems pretty flimsy when we don't know what the preferred future relationship looks like.

[Infidel144]

It's an EU policy, yes.

Leave:
Exit, quit, depart.
Yep, real ambiguous.

Okay, I'll explain the problem to you: as I've just demonstrated, you can be outside the EU but still subscribe to parts of EU policy à la Norway. Right now, we don't know what vision for the UK people who voted leave had when they did so. We've got hints here and there like the polling I mentioned earlier, but without some sort of confirmatory vote, the mandate from the 2016 referendum seems pretty flimsy when we don't know what the preferred future relationship looks like.

Nope. What you have demonstrated is that people who have lost can try to create problems and issues instead of accepting that loss.

Leave means leave.

All else comes after.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Leave:
Exit, quit, depart.
Yep, real ambiguous.



Nope. What you have demonstrated is that people who have lost can try to create problems and issues instead of accepting that loss.

Leave means leave.

All else comes after.

The issue being is that, this is one opinion among the myriad of leave factions. It is not the only viewpoint. Your arguing that indeed it should be (which is a fair argument), but in reality you have some leavers fine with a customs union, or indeed hoping for it over a no-deal scenario. You also have other brexiteers who want to go further and leave institutions that are nothing to do with the EU such as the ECHR. This is compounded by simple fact that in the Westminster system, the voters lost their ability to have their say the minute they cast their ballot. After that the myriad of remain and leave factions all could and indeed did legitimately interpret the 'mandate' they had been given in any way they deemed fit and could make a case for (see how the SNP have used it for instance, or Lib-dems, or Labour- all very different).

A simple question is indeed as Jom alluded to earlier. Is Norway part of the EU? The answer- no. Yet it has single market access with the EU. A future British government even on a no-deal basis will more than likely be forced to come to a rather close relationship with the EU (Or one of the other global powers, rising or established) that sacrifices elements of sovereignty (as all trade deals do)- thus to argue Britain must leave the single market because of brexit is flawed, because you can be part of that, and not in the EU itself, and moreover saying that Britain cannot form such a relationship because of brexit, gets complicated real fast when we start looking over at what trade agreements actually mean (Always the transfer of sovereignty from the smaller power to the larger).

Switzerland is another example that Britain might adopt- it still has to follow many EU rules and regulations for market access, but it is not part of the EU at all. Doing a 'swiss model' is still brexit as was defined by the referendum question and 'a' Leave conception of brexit.

Where i would diverge from Jom's perspective is in that remain voters are unambiguous. I think that in reality remain is just as divided in their perspectives, particularly as the Remain campaign had significant elements of 'we'll reform the EU from the inside', however they do indeed all have a common 'goal' which is to retain EU membership at the base level, so i totally get that point and can see it as a fair one.

[Jom]

Leave:
Exit, quit, depart.
Yep, real ambiguous.

You can leave the EU and still be in the single market...

Nope. What you have demonstrated is that people who have lost can try to create problems and issues instead of accepting that loss.

Leave means leave.

All else comes after.

Okay, I can see why you're taking this position: you view Brexit as some sort of competition that one side "won". Where have I said that we shouldn't accept the 2016 referendum result? And the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal is the thing that's creating the problems, coupled with the fact that the referendum only dealt with the "what" rather than the "how".

How do you know "leave" means leave without a deal? What makes you think that those who voted leave wanted our future relationship with the EU to be along WTO lines?

[Daruwind]

If anything past few pages demonstrated that even UK people have not single major vision of what is the goal... I´m from Czech rep. I´m from EU, for me only important question is, what is Uk final say regarding EU and such and right now nobody in world knows what it would be. I don´t care if you need GE, second third and fourth referendum or something else but time is running.

Referendum was badly prepared and politicians did crappy decisions and result of referendum is crap as well. 52/48 is crap no matter which side won. And yeah, leave won, except leavers are now so scared of possible lose in second ref that they won´t allow it. So what if the winds have changes? DO citizens have rights to change opinion or not? Nobody can alter it, nobody can chage the result but right now only one thing is sure. UK is under time pressure and without clue..

[Dante Von Hespburg]

That's rather exactly it, both you and Jom have hit it spot on in terms of the referendum politically cannot be seen as a binary 'win/lose' as any side who does try and implement or view it that way, will actually overall lose as it means that their breixt (or Remain if remain had one on such a non-sustainable majority) is not a sustainable majority over the long-term or indeed even short term. The failure indeed for compromise and the further polarization we're seeing in Parliament and the electorate will mean that brexit remains a big issue for the next decade or so, and we might even find ourselves in a revolving door where EU relationship, debates about it and indeed membership is concerned. The referendum was a battle, but so far all sides have failed to land the 'killer blow' (i.e. gain a stable parliamentary and electoral support) for their deal.

It is currently very possible that the next Government will be Corbyn's Labour given current polling (and the fact that Conservative moderates have stated today that any hard-brexit, they will support a vote on no confidence in their own government and bring it down), they have a very different vision of brexit to the Conservatives- they want a customs union. That still delivers the referendum to some factions among leave, but also it highlights how any Conservative (or brexit party indeed) moves now to do a hard-brexit/their vision will simply be 'undone' in at most 3 years time, probably earlier though if a snap GE is called.

That currently is a very likely outcome for the UK, this is despite the Brexit Party eating at the Conservatives vote share (and indeed actually its because the Brexit party have weakened the Conservative vote share that will probably allow a Labour government in). But 'brexit' means a myriad of things to different people, and in reality the failure to secure a compromise essentially means we're going to swing wildly from whatever the Conservative party decides now, to then Labour implementing a very different policy if they get into office. There is no stability now.

[Cope]

Again, this is why the referendum as badly designed. And you're right: there was nothing on the ballot paper which dictated a timeline for triggering article 50 (with Vote Leave saying on their website that article 50 may not even need to be triggered), but the two arguments are not comparable: it's common sense that the democratic mandate from the referendum would expire fairly soon if article 50 was never triggered, whereas it's decisively not clear what leaving the EU means, as no one has ever done it before, and at least one of the institutions you insist we must also leave because of the referendum has nothing to do with the free movement of people, which was the prime reason why people voted to leave.

The central objectives of the leave movement are to reduce migration, to strike international trade deals, to end the jurisdiction of the ECJ over British affairs and to return the law-making powers delegated to Brussels back to Westminster. It is "common sense" that for these objectives to be achieved the United Kingdom must leave the European Single Market and the Custom's Union in addition to the European Union.

It's not those who want to seek clarification's fault that the question and choices were ill-conceived.

Very few of the significant figures now demanding "clarification" on the meaning of the leave vote opposed the European Union Referendum Act 2015 when it went through Commons. Many of them were sitting MP's who had the opportunity to scrutinize and/or oppose the bill directly, but chose not to. Only 53 SNP MP's voted against it. So contrary to your suggestion, and even were it true that the "question and choices were ill-conceived", the nature of the Referendum Act very much is the fault of those now complaining of its ambiguity.

[Infidel144]

The issue being is that, this is one opinion among the myriad of leave factions. It is not the only viewpoint. Your arguing that indeed it should be (which is a fair argument), but in reality you have some leavers fine with a customs union, or indeed hoping for it over a no-deal scenario. You also have other brexiteers who want to go further and leave institutions that are nothing to do with the EU such as the ECHR.

None of this is relevant. Leave the EU means Leave the EU.

This is compounded by simple fact that in the Westminster system, the voters lost their ability to have their say the minute they cast their ballot. After that the myriad of remain and leave factions all could and indeed did legitimately interpret the 'mandate' they had been given in any way they deemed fit and could make a case for (see how the SNP have used it for instance, or Lib-dems, or Labour- all very different).

No interpretation needed.
The vote was for Leave.
So Leave.

A simple question is indeed as Jom alluded to earlier. Is Norway part of the EU? The answer- no. Yet it has single market access with the EU.

That was asked, and once clarified that the single market is part of the EU, answered.
Leave.

A future British government even on a no-deal basis will more than likely be forced to come to a rather close relationship with the EU (Or one of the other global powers, rising or established) that sacrifices elements of sovereignty (as all trade deals do)- thus to argue Britain must leave the single market because of brexit is flawed, because you can be part of that, and not in the EU itself,

Leave. Future is future. All else comes after leaving.

and moreover saying that Britain cannot form such a relationship because of brexit, gets complicated real fast when we start looking over at what trade agreements actually mean (Always the transfer of sovereignty from the smaller power to the larger).


Switzerland is another example that Britain might adopt- it still has to follow many EU rules and regulations for market access, but it is not part of the EU at all. Doing a 'swiss model' is still brexit as was defined by the referendum question and 'a' Leave conception of brexit.

I don't see any thing in the referendum question about a 'swiss model' (or a Norway model).

You can leave the EU and still be in the single market...

You can leave the EU, and then negotiate for trade deals.

Okay, I can see why you're taking this position: you view Brexit as some sort of competition that one side "won".

What I actually see is a vote where 'one side' won, and the losers whinge and whine and cry and piss and moan and try and do what they can to avoid the fact that they lost.

Where have I said that we shouldn't accept the 2016 referendum result? And the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal is the thing that's creating the problems, coupled with the fact that the referendum only dealt with the "what" rather than the "how".

A problem is being created, to avoid leaving.

How do you know "leave" means leave without a deal? What makes you think that those who voted leave wanted our future relationship with the EU to be along WTO lines?

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

Yep. Lots of stuff in there about deals...