BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
When I suggested that this thread was mostly now about wallowing in self-pity, there were two counter arguments. Firstly that it was about ongoing relations with the EU and secondly that hindsight could be used to assess whether the approach taken could have been better.kingstongraham said:
I remember feeling like I was swimming against the tide before the vote saying that if we left the EU we wouldn't stay in the sm.TheBigBean said:
I see what you did there. Still not joining the merry go round.kingstongraham said:
He's right. Literally everyone said we wouldn't leave them.TheBigBean said:
I'm not going on that merry-go-round.rick_chasey said:Sorry how is staying part of SM and CU deceiving the electorate?
It was the premise of the entire referendum.
As I said, your opinion is unchanged.
I have discussed with you whether joining the EEA was a good idea with hindsight, and we disagree which is fair enough, but the whole discussion around what was promised has been done to death and fits in the "wallowing in self-pity" category in my view.1 -
That’s only because you said that staying part of the SM was “deceiving the electorate”.TheBigBean said:
When I suggested that this thread was mostly now about wallowing in self-pity, there were two counter arguments. Firstly that it was about ongoing relations with the EU and secondly that hindsight could be used to assess whether the approach taken could have been better.kingstongraham said:
I remember feeling like I was swimming against the tide before the vote saying that if we left the EU we wouldn't stay in the sm.TheBigBean said:
I see what you did there. Still not joining the merry go round.kingstongraham said:
He's right. Literally everyone said we wouldn't leave them.TheBigBean said:
I'm not going on that merry-go-round.rick_chasey said:Sorry how is staying part of SM and CU deceiving the electorate?
It was the premise of the entire referendum.
As I said, your opinion is unchanged.
I have discussed with you whether joining the EEA was a good idea with hindsight, and we disagree which is fair enough, but the whole discussion around what was promised has been done to death and fits in the "wallowing in self-pity" category in my view.
You can’t say that and then moan people are discussing the vote.1 -
I view what people say and then do as instructive as to their future trustworthiness.TheBigBean said:
When I suggested that this thread was mostly now about wallowing in self-pity, there were two counter arguments. Firstly that it was about ongoing relations with the EU and secondly that hindsight could be used to assess whether the approach taken could have been better.kingstongraham said:
I remember feeling like I was swimming against the tide before the vote saying that if we left the EU we wouldn't stay in the sm.TheBigBean said:
I see what you did there. Still not joining the merry go round.kingstongraham said:
He's right. Literally everyone said we wouldn't leave them.TheBigBean said:
I'm not going on that merry-go-round.rick_chasey said:Sorry how is staying part of SM and CU deceiving the electorate?
It was the premise of the entire referendum.
As I said, your opinion is unchanged.
I have discussed with you whether joining the EEA was a good idea with hindsight, and we disagree which is fair enough, but the whole discussion around what was promised has been done to death and fits in the "wallowing in self-pity" category in my view.0 -
I preceded that with the word perceived.rick_chasey said:
That’s only because you said that staying part of the SM was “deceiving the electorate”.TheBigBean said:
When I suggested that this thread was mostly now about wallowing in self-pity, there were two counter arguments. Firstly that it was about ongoing relations with the EU and secondly that hindsight could be used to assess whether the approach taken could have been better.kingstongraham said:
I remember feeling like I was swimming against the tide before the vote saying that if we left the EU we wouldn't stay in the sm.TheBigBean said:
I see what you did there. Still not joining the merry go round.kingstongraham said:
He's right. Literally everyone said we wouldn't leave them.TheBigBean said:
I'm not going on that merry-go-round.rick_chasey said:Sorry how is staying part of SM and CU deceiving the electorate?
It was the premise of the entire referendum.
As I said, your opinion is unchanged.
I have discussed with you whether joining the EEA was a good idea with hindsight, and we disagree which is fair enough, but the whole discussion around what was promised has been done to death and fits in the "wallowing in self-pity" category in my view.
You can’t say that and then moan people are discussing the vote.0 -
Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.0
-
Talks on the NI Protocol to rumble on into the New Year“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
0 -
Can you see a scenario when it is as stable as if was without SM & CU?tailwindhome said:Talks on the NI Protocol to rumble on into the New Year
0 -
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
On the main issues around funding for the NHS (or generally having "more money" to fund state activities), immigration (from the entire RoW), and "less red tape", I cannot see any evidence that Brexit chosen has fulfilled any of the promises; there is less funding for state activities due to lower growth so lower tax receipts, immigration doesn't seem to have changed, merely the makeup, and there is more "red tape".
it has caused additional headaches in NI too.
You could argue "more sovereignty" but I'm curious with how the trade agreements went how that actually has manifested.
0 -
No.rick_chasey said:
Can you see a scenario when it is as stable as if was without SM & CU?tailwindhome said:Talks on the NI Protocol to rumble on into the New Year
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
It is a strange debate as I doubt more than 1% of Leave voters have any understanding of what the CU/SM are.rick_chasey said:
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
On the main issues around funding for the NHS (or generally having "more money" to fund state activities), immigration (from the entire RoW), and "less red tape", I cannot see any evidence that Brexit chosen has fulfilled any of the promises; there is less funding for state activities due to lower growth so lower tax receipts, immigration doesn't seem to have changed, merely the makeup, and there is more "red tape".
it has caused additional headaches in NI too.
You could argue "more sovereignty" but I'm curious with how the trade agreements went how that actually has manifested.0 -
Are you arguing that CU/SM membership is not "deceiving" the electorate?surrey_commuter said:
It is a strange debate as I doubt more than 1% of Leave voters have any understanding of what the CU/SM are.rick_chasey said:
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
On the main issues around funding for the NHS (or generally having "more money" to fund state activities), immigration (from the entire RoW), and "less red tape", I cannot see any evidence that Brexit chosen has fulfilled any of the promises; there is less funding for state activities due to lower growth so lower tax receipts, immigration doesn't seem to have changed, merely the makeup, and there is more "red tape".
it has caused additional headaches in NI too.
You could argue "more sovereignty" but I'm curious with how the trade agreements went how that actually has manifested.0 -
You can argue this, but I think the majority of the electorate would disagree that it fulfilled the referendum mandate, and so Brexit would be a much bigger issue now.rick_chasey said:
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
NHS has no more money. Immigration system is broadly as discussed and expected. Red tape is up in some areas and will probably be down a bit in others.rick_chasey said:
On the main issues around funding for the NHS (or generally having "more money" to fund state activities), immigration (from the entire RoW), and "less red tape", I cannot see any evidence that Brexit chosen has fulfilled any of the promises; there is less funding for state activities due to lower growth so lower tax receipts, immigration doesn't seem to have changed, merely the makeup, and there is more "red tape".
0 -
TheBigBean said:
You can argue this, but I think the majority of the electorate would disagree that it fulfilled the referendum mandate, and so Brexit would be a much bigger issue now.rick_chasey said:
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
NHS has no more money. Immigration system is broadly as discussed and expected. Red tape is up in some areas and will probably be down a bit in others.rick_chasey said:
On the main issues around funding for the NHS (or generally having "more money" to fund state activities), immigration (from the entire RoW), and "less red tape", I cannot see any evidence that Brexit chosen has fulfilled any of the promises; there is less funding for state activities due to lower growth so lower tax receipts, immigration doesn't seem to have changed, merely the makeup, and there is more "red tape".
I think that's partly because a sizeable portion of the leave vote voted for the unicorn of wanting this 'taking back control' thing, but for nothing really to change: they wanted to retain all the freedoms, and just to get some new ones. They deceived themselves. I'd agree that it would be a hard sell to tell them that in the real world that that's not going to hold water.
Rarely is a manifesto built on such un unresolvable contradiction, but here we are, dealing with the fallout of an impossible promise.0 -
I would argue that they don't care.rick_chasey said:
Are you arguing that CU/SM membership is not "deceiving" the electorate?surrey_commuter said:
It is a strange debate as I doubt more than 1% of Leave voters have any understanding of what the CU/SM are.rick_chasey said:
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
On the main issues around funding for the NHS (or generally having "more money" to fund state activities), immigration (from the entire RoW), and "less red tape", I cannot see any evidence that Brexit chosen has fulfilled any of the promises; there is less funding for state activities due to lower growth so lower tax receipts, immigration doesn't seem to have changed, merely the makeup, and there is more "red tape".
it has caused additional headaches in NI too.
You could argue "more sovereignty" but I'm curious with how the trade agreements went how that actually has manifested.
Freedom of movement? That's a different matter.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I agree with this now, but only because of what has been said since the referendum result.TheBigBean said:
You can argue this, but I think the majority of the electorate would disagree that it fulfilled the referendum mandate, and so Brexit would be a much bigger issue now.rick_chasey said:
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
I don't believe this would have been the case the day after the referendum.0 -
kingstongraham said:
I agree with this now, but only because of what has been said since the referendum result.TheBigBean said:
You can argue this, but I think the majority of the electorate would disagree that it fulfilled the referendum mandate, and so Brexit would be a much bigger issue now.rick_chasey said:
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
I don't believe this would have been the case the day after the referendum.
You have to hand it to the likes of Farage how quickly they turned on a sixpence from their championing of a Norway-type agreement pre-referendum to "There's no question that we can stay in the Single Market and customs union, as that would be a betrayal of the referendum", and then hammered that revised message home.0 -
Exactly this, if we had a grand ceremony to mark the UK exiting the EU and then joined the EEA whilst using the controls we always had to limit immigration then 85% of Leave voters would of been happy.pblakeney said:
I would argue that they don't care.rick_chasey said:
Are you arguing that CU/SM membership is not "deceiving" the electorate?surrey_commuter said:
It is a strange debate as I doubt more than 1% of Leave voters have any understanding of what the CU/SM are.rick_chasey said:
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
On the main issues around funding for the NHS (or generally having "more money" to fund state activities), immigration (from the entire RoW), and "less red tape", I cannot see any evidence that Brexit chosen has fulfilled any of the promises; there is less funding for state activities due to lower growth so lower tax receipts, immigration doesn't seem to have changed, merely the makeup, and there is more "red tape".
it has caused additional headaches in NI too.
You could argue "more sovereignty" but I'm curious with how the trade agreements went how that actually has manifested.
Freedom of movement? That's a different matter.
It would have been very easy to sell it as the ultimate piece of cakeism especially if you could have persuaded the EU to pretend to object to our EEA membership.0 -
I think you are right that the (Leave voting) electorate probably would now see CU/SM membership as not fulfilling their wishes. But crucially I think this is the result of a couple of years of rhetoric telling those voters that. Had the immediate response from government been to continue the line that CU/SM membership would be maintained for now and periodically reviewed, then I think the electorate could have been taken with them. That opportunity is long gone, now.TheBigBean said:
You can argue this, but I think the majority of the electorate would disagree that it fulfilled the referendum mandate, and so Brexit would be a much bigger issue now.rick_chasey said:
That is entirely because of how the gov't ran the negotiations and how May chose to interpret the result - which was highly debatable.TheBigBean said:
No it is about how the electorate (now or a few years after the vote) would perceive that outcome. Very much not a rerun of who said what before the vote.rick_chasey said:Either way that is a reference to the vote - so to then complain the discussion is about that is a bit rich.
Bluntly you can complain it's whining about the vote but surely you must agree that the mandate stems from the vote. That's how referendum's work (and why they ought not be used).
The mandate was to leave the EU, the rest is entirely up for debate, and we are now looking at the implications of *how* the the rest was done.
It is not unreasonable to offer the counter-factual (staying as members of CU and SM) to evaluate the quality of the decisions the gov't made, as it was a legitimate option for the gov't, as it still fulfilled the referendum mandate.
NHS has no more money. Immigration system is broadly as discussed and expected. Red tape is up in some areas and will probably be down a bit in others.rick_chasey said:
On the main issues around funding for the NHS (or generally having "more money" to fund state activities), immigration (from the entire RoW), and "less red tape", I cannot see any evidence that Brexit chosen has fulfilled any of the promises; there is less funding for state activities due to lower growth so lower tax receipts, immigration doesn't seem to have changed, merely the makeup, and there is more "red tape".1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Anti-immigration won't be the main driver in the long term, as the requirements and logic of demographics will make it impossible to maintain even a constant level of living without immigration.0
-
As has been discussed before, there is widespread support for immigration from Hong Kong, so the majority are not against immigration.rick_chasey said:Anti-immigration won't be the main driver in the long term, as the requirements and logic of demographics will make it impossible to maintain even a constant level of living without immigration.
0 -
Just brown people fleeing warzones in Syria, Afganistan and Sudan, right?TheBigBean said:
As has been discussed before, there is widespread support for immigration from Hong Kong, so the majority are not against immigration.rick_chasey said:Anti-immigration won't be the main driver in the long term, as the requirements and logic of demographics will make it impossible to maintain even a constant level of living without immigration.
0 -
'Red tape is up in some areas and will probably be down a bit in others.'
This made me laugh. Yeah, red tape, bureaucracy and general mind-numbing, pointless tedium is up ever so slightly. It's only business though so no-one really gives a sh1t.2 -
I mean, all the industry bodies are saying it's only increased and I've not seen any say it's reduced, but?skyblueamateur said:'Red tape is up in some areas and will probably be down a bit in others.'
This made me laugh. Yeah, red tape, bureaucracy and general mind-numbing, pointless tedium is up ever so slightly. It's only business though so no-one really gives a censored .0 -
In fact can anyone give examples where Brexit has cut down red tape?
The only one I can think from importing and exporting is no longer having to report Intrastat once a month. That took us a good 30 minutes once a month, whereas we have now quadrupled our time preparing export documentation, have to print 6 hard copies of what can be 20 page CI's (at the request of the carriers), paying duty, a tripling of carriage costs and custom clearance charges.
Seems a bit hollow to me to be honest.0 -
I'm guessing it is anyone who is seen as economically upgrading, but I don't speak for them.rick_chasey said:
Just brown people fleeing warzones in Syria, Afganistan and Sudan, right?TheBigBean said:
As has been discussed before, there is widespread support for immigration from Hong Kong, so the majority are not against immigration.rick_chasey said:Anti-immigration won't be the main driver in the long term, as the requirements and logic of demographics will make it impossible to maintain even a constant level of living without immigration.
0 -
TheBigBean said:
I'm guessing it is anyone who is seen as economically upgrading, but I don't speak for them.rick_chasey said:
Just brown people fleeing warzones in Syria, Afganistan and Sudan, right?TheBigBean said:
As has been discussed before, there is widespread support for immigration from Hong Kong, so the majority are not against immigration.rick_chasey said:Anti-immigration won't be the main driver in the long term, as the requirements and logic of demographics will make it impossible to maintain even a constant level of living without immigration.
0 -
Not sure your industry is going to be at the forefront of red tape reduction.skyblueamateur said:In fact can anyone give examples where Brexit has cut down red tape?
The only one I can think from importing and exporting is no longer having to report Intrastat once a month. That took us a good 30 minutes once a month, whereas we have now quadrupled our time preparing export documentation, have to print 6 hard copies of what can be 20 page CI's (at the request of the carriers), paying duty, a tripling of carriage costs and custom clearance charges.
Seems a bit hollow to me to be honest.0 -
