18 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

I am not doubting that at all,

I was originally responding to the remainers on this forum who have for months abused leavers as racists (among other things) for voting to end freedom of movement, ie voting to leave the Single Market. Now some of those same remainers are saying that we didn't vote to leave the Single Market. Whatever credibilty some of them may have had is diminished by this kind of dishonesty.

 

I started on this thread as genuinely neutral, and it soon became clear to me that the abusiveness, emotionalism and hysteria of the remainers far outweighs that of the leavers, and yet the remainers still try to claim some kind of moral highground. This kind of self-deception says far more about some of these posters than their individual posts ever can. 

42 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

right,

 

in my view, the definite democratic mandate to leave sm is there, crystal clear

 

couple of points here, assuming what you say is reasonably correct;

so; a bunch of the UK politicians screwed the electorate then, tough luck, cannot amend that now, too late

just remember next time you participate in a GE

 

Norway option, it is there for UK (maybe, pending agreement  from EU and EFTA)

(my view is that UK would hate such a solution - but never mind)

but,

the UK government does not go for that solution, they have messed around year and a half now without pressing for what

you call Norway solution, its kinda gettin' a bit late now.

 

above in this thread

in 2 entries I have outlined a by the book way of Norway option - not quick

and described a kinda bold fasttrack way of doing it

 

but neither UK or EU talks about this

 

guess you are just foooked

 

 

 

As I've said before a no deal Brexit means a rather aggressive, low regulation competitor on its doorstep.  Believe me, the EU does not want UK to be too far away from its ideology.

5 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

The referendum was endorsed via 2 General Elections and the Government's promise to enact the decision taken by the electorate. The SM was created by the EU, and it is one of the more than 30 EU policy areas. The SM is a key part of the EU, not separate from it. Ending freedom of movement was a major factor in the referendum result - or do you deny that too? Denial and fantasy is not going to help your cause.

It is a bit far fetched, some might say fantasy, to believe that the GE results were based on the referendum. To do so would mean that you saw Labour at the time to be a credible government. I suspect a large percentage of voters were unaware it was even in the Tory manifesto.

Freedom of movement was the scapegoat for government austerity and DC was certainly not going to admit to it. People blamed the 'foreigners' because that is what they could see but the government knew what the increase was and failed to fund it. It is very difficult for people to visualise lack of funding. Those that think removing freedom of movement will improve essential services are in for a bit of a shock.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion as am I.

43 minutes ago, aright said:

"Because there is no democratic mandate to leave the SM." "But we didn't vote on that ! "

 

Yes we did! We voted to leave the EU and staying in the Single Market would mean we haven't left the EU for the reason I gave. 

Your comment doesn’t invite discussion. It is one sided, which ignores the democratic deficit EU governance entails and ignores the fact people voted for the UK to be self governing in all its aspects.

 

No the Sm is a different entity to the EU otherwise a soft brexit would never have been a possible option. 

 

It was the most popular option in a recent poll https://www.businessinsider.com/norway-style-soft-brexit-most-popular-outcome-among-british-people-opinium-poll-2018-6

23 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I was originally responding to the remainers on this forum who have for months abused leavers as racists (among other things) for voting to end freedom of movement, ie voting to leave the Single Market. Now some of those same remainers are saying that we didn't vote to leave the Single Market. Whatever credibilty some of them may have had is diminished by this kind of dishonesty.

 

I started on this thread as genuinely neutral, and it soon became clear to me that the abusiveness, emotionalism and hysteria of the remainers far outweighs that of the leavers, and yet the remainers still try to claim some kind of moral highground. This kind of self-deception says far more about some of these posters than their individual posts ever can. 

I have never accused leave voters as a whole to be racist - I am sure there are some that are and i'm equally sure most racists voted leave,  but it not a generalization that should be made.

 

I'm sure there are a whole host of reasons for voting leave.

 

I may not agree with most of them though !  

3 minutes ago, tebee said:

I have never accused leave voters as a whole to be racist - I am sure there are some that are and i'm equally sure most racists voted leave,  but it not a generalization that should be made.

 

I'm sure there are a whole host of reasons for voting leave.

 

I may not agree with most of them though !  

I'm not suggesting you personally have done, but many have. I am not so interested in this thread as to record the innumerable incidents of abuse from remainers to leavers - easily checked via the search facility though.

 

As I've mentioned before, I've worked in 15+ European countries and 25+ countries in total. It's not racist to want to control immigration - all countries do; ironically since the referendum the EU has become much more amenable to the idea of controlling immigration, and the formerly unassailable Merkel is now assailed precisely because of her ill-advised pronouncements encouraging refuges to come to the EU, thereby creating huge pressure on EU border countries without any EU policy or assistance; Turkey was paid to take care of the problem, and the last I heard, the EU was still not honouring that commitment. Yep, the EU is one big happy family, or an increasingly dysfunctional one?

 

Back to the referendum: controlling EU immigration was a major factor in the vote Leave, regardless of party orientation. That means a vote against the Single Market. Yet some posters claim there was no vote against the Single Market. This is the 4th or 5th response I've made to this fallacy. It's the last.

I am on neither side, but the split has caused too much predictable division. I see no-one has yet attempted to correct DC's errors in 1. Not specifying (or sticking to) whether the ref vote was binding to the government or not.  2. Not requiring of all referendums, which seek to change current law / treaty or whatever, to have a min 60/40 result with a min 50% turnout to enforce change. That allows for fickle types .......

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

 

I just said EXACTLY what you and your fellow brexiters has been saying constantly, what you think EU is. Aren't you happy for it? I did it for you. 

 

Sometimes it's perfectly ok to let kids to burn their hands on the fire. That way they learn not to do it again. Why EU should behave like overly protective mother for it's states who are behaving badly? 

 

Let's see you'll say once Scotland brexits and Northern Ireland want's to do the same. 

 

 At this point if you want to be ruled by an unelected group of people who do their thinking and ordering for the people of 27 countries and some 500 million people, I am happy for you.

 

For me I prefer that people are elected to run my country and I can vote them out every 5 years if I wish. You cannot do that it the EU. You can vote out those with power in your own country but nothing allows you to change the way that the EU runs Europe. If for example your country, or any other for that matter want to change the way the EU operates, 26 other countries have to agree with you or nothing happens.

 

If that is your idea of democracy then please keep it on your side of the channel.

 

What happens if Scotland and NI want to leave. They too can have a referendum but judging by the last one in Scotland and the loss of seats by the SNP it may have the same result. 

 

NI I have no idea but that is more of a religious problem. Back in 1922 some 96 years ago the South broke away to become Eire but the north voted to stay. For 20 odd years there was a religious war between the Catholics and the Protestants which is still going on quietly.

 

Will they leave? I have no idea. Do you?

11 minutes ago, Disaantri said:

I am on neither side, but the split has caused too much predictable division. I see no-one has yet attempted to correct DC's errors in 1. Not specifying (or sticking to) whether the ref vote was binding to the government or not.  2. Not requiring of all referendums, which seek to change current law / treaty or whatever, to have a min 60/40 result with a min 50% turnout to enforce change. That allows for fickle types .......

 

Yes but you are still missing my point - all remainers voted to stay in the SM as did a number of leavers - otherwise there would never have been any talk of a soft brexit.

 

Therefore there may have been a majority vote to leave the EU , but there was almost certainly NOT a majority vote to Leave the SM - that was this government's choice post-referendum. 

 

So if you say the majority vote to leave the EU must be honoured why can I not say that the majority vote to stay in the SM should be also honoured.

 

Taking the majority of a majority option is not democracy which should respect all viewpoints - that way lies years or turmoil and dissent. 

 

Only compromise will heal the country in the long term.

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

For me I prefer that people are elected to run my country and I can vote them out every 5 years if I wish. You cannot do that it the EU. You can vote out those with power in your own country but nothing allows you to change the way that the EU runs Europe. If for example your country, or any other for that matter want to change the way the EU operates, 26 other countries have to agree with you or nothing happens.

 

If that is your idea of democracy then please keep it on your side of the channel.

Yes an important point.

A simple thing that I've never seen mentioned, here or in the "quality press", is that the EU bureaucracy is just so remote for many, maybe most Brits. It's obviously not remote if you come from Brussels or Luxembourg, far from it, it's a cash cow.

1 minute ago, tebee said:

Yes but you are still missing my point - all remainers voted to stay in the SM as did a number of leavers - otherwise there would never have been any talk of a soft brexit.

A false assumption again on your part. The "soft Brexit" was championed by remainers who found themselves unwillingly in a position where they were obliged to honour the referendum vote to leave - May springs to mind.

15 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 At this point if you want to be ruled by an unelected group of people who do their thinking and ordering for the people of 27 countries and some 500 million people, I am happy for you.

 

For me I prefer that people are elected to run my country and I can vote them out every 5 years if I wish. You cannot do that it the EU. You can vote out those with power in your own country but nothing allows you to change the way that the EU runs Europe. If for example your country, or any other for that matter want to change the way the EU operates, 26 other countries have to agree with you or nothing happens.

 

If that is your idea of democracy then please keep it on your side of the channel.

 

I don't understand why you keep on lying? MEP, Members of European Parliament, should have a ring, which says democratically elected members of the parliament.

 

When living in Europe, I'm allowed to cast my vote for who I wish to represent myself on the parliament. Can't you? I suppose you voted for Nigel Farage, who was MEP elected by British voters. 

 

EU MEPs are elected in, just like members of our local parliaments. 

 

Please stop saying Unelected again. That is actually rather offencive. Thank you. 

19 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

A false assumption again on your part. The "soft Brexit" was championed by remainers who found themselves unwillingly in a position where they were obliged to honour the referendum vote to leave - May springs to mind.

Agreed! 

There is no Plan B, Norway, Montenegro, Canada or Canada Plus. 

There is only Plan Leave. If this can be achieved to the satisfaction of both parties....well and good. If it can't we must walk away from the table . Plan Leave is what I, and others, voted for and that's what we expect.   

.

4 hours ago, tebee said:

Hey, i've deliberately avoided playing the racist card

This must give you a warm glow inside. It's strange how racism is a really defining subject for people who like to consider themselves as liberals. Have you also avoided the

 

> leavers are all old card (aka the ageism card)

> the leavers are all uneducated card

> the leavers are working class card

> the leavers are low intelligence card

 

have you heck, and neither have the other prominent remainers on this thread; so much for your collective moral high ground.

 

2 hours ago, tebee said:

 

No the Sm is a different entity to the EU otherwise a soft brexit would never have been a possible option. 

 

It was the most popular option in a recent poll https://www.businessinsider.com/norway-style-soft-brexit-most-popular-outcome-among-british-people-opinium-poll-2018-6

 

it is without doubt the most popular and obvious option; so obvious that many of us took it as read- lesson learned!

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

A false assumption again on your part. The "soft Brexit" was championed by remainers who found themselves unwillingly in a position where they were obliged to honour the referendum vote to leave - May springs to mind.

 

I don't think that is at all true.

Ignoring my own doubts and looking at it square on, yes, I can see how a no deal (WTO option) could work and it would be the 'cleanest' option. A nation becoming independent is hardly unknown!

 

But what can leavers tell me to reassure me that disruption would be kept to a minimum? 

 

What sort of decline can I expect for the first 2 years say- 1%, 5%?

 

How do they think the Government is going to stimulate demand- more tax cuts for mega wealthy companies who don't pay much tax anyway?

 

How are trade deals going to translate in to more exports?

 

How is the Government going to deal with staff shortages- (surely not by immigration)?

 

Who will foot the bill for Brexit- the poor again?

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Now some of those same remainers are saying that we didn't vote to leave the Single Market. 

Show me where it said on the ballot paper that people are voting to leave the single market. 

 

See, that’s the problem with you Brexiteers. You ask people to “respect the referendum result” but aren’t doing it yourself. When people (correctly) point out that referendums aren’t binding but advisory only, you want people to stick to what’s written on the ballot paper. When people (correctly) point out that lots of lies and false promises were made during the campaigns and no one knew what he was voting for, you argue there’s a ballot paper so people knew what they were voting for. So then stick to it: it only said to leave the EU. Nowhere did anyone vote for or against any post-Brexit agreement terms. 

3 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Show me where it said on the ballot paper that people are voting to leave the single market. 

 

See, that’s the problem with you Brexiteers.

First of all I am not a Brexiter. 

People voted to end freedom of movement. It was one of the bigest issues of the referendum. Ending FOM means leaving the Single Market.

5 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 

People voted to end freedom of movement. 

No, they didn’t. Nowhere was that mentioned on the ballot paper. 

9 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

But what can leavers tell me to reassure me that disruption would be kept to a minimum? 

 

What sort of decline can I expect for the first 2 years say- 1%, 5%?

Several forecasts have been made for the next 15 years, ranging from cumulative impact on GDP of  +7% to -10%. These are available on the net and I have quoted them at least 5 times now.

 

Forecasts depend on the assumptions going into the model (which have been wildly different), and the models themselves (which have been not so wildly different).

 

The real impact depends on the actual deal and who is making the policies. Neither of which is known at present. Uncertainty is unsettling for people and business: this is one of the reasons why a Norway half way house is not a good interim solution - it will just prolong the uncertainty (and not honour the referendum result).

19 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

First of all I am not a Brexiter. 

People voted to end freedom of movement. It was one of the bigest issues of the referendum. Ending FOM means leaving the Single Market.

It wasn't on the ballot paper, so it is only your inference, based on your own prejudices that that was what the did. I agree some did, but we can never know how many. 

It can't be used as a democratic reason to leave the free market.   

8 minutes ago, tebee said:

It wasn't on the ballot paper, so it is only your inference, based on your own prejudices that that was what the did. I agree some did, but we can never know how many. 

It can't be used as a democratic reason to leave the free market.   

We would all like to vote for exactly what we want, unfortunately it's not always on the ballot paper.

2 minutes ago, aright said:

We would all like to vote for exactly what we want, unfortunately it's not always on the ballot paper.

 

Yes I agree, but it means you can't use the referendum as a democratic mandate that we must leave the SM. If you do you are disenfranchising everybody that voted for a Soft Brexit.  

2 minutes ago, aright said:

We would all like to vote for exactly what we want, unfortunately it's not always on the ballot paper.

 

Quite so. Common sense must come in to it.

 

The problem is that most politicians weren't sure either- let's be honest.  Most striking of all, arch Brexiteers were at a loss initially- so the argument that ordinary voters knew what was meant just doesn't cut imo.

9 minutes ago, tebee said:

It wasn't on the ballot paper, so it is only your inference, based on your own prejudices that that was what the did.

LOL, my prejudices. Just go back and look at the press for the period to reveal your postjudices. Ending FOM was a major issue in the referendum. Deny it as much as you like - this state of denial seems to have become a fetish for some remainers on this forum. 

The rest of the world doesn't deny it.

33 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Several forecasts have been made for the next 15 years, ranging from cumulative impact on GDP of  +7% to -10%. These are available on the net and I have quoted them at least 5 times now.

 

Forecasts depend on the assumptions going into the model (which have been wildly different), and the models themselves (which have been not so wildly different).

 

The real impact depends on the actual deal and who is making the policies. Neither of which is known at present. Uncertainty is unsettling for people and business: this is one of the reasons why a Norway half way house is not a good interim solution - it will just prolong the uncertainty (and not honour the referendum result).

 

100% agree about uncertainty.  But that does make the Government's handling of Brexit seem quite deplorable to me.  I mean if a Tory Government is not good for protecting the economy, what is its use at all?

 

This Government did not have the bottle to say what it was going to do and then do it. It is weak leadership that has cost us.

 

Now, it is not in a position to do anything other than a no deal under poor circumstances.  Most importantly, it has proved untrustworthy, in the sense that it is weak and incompetent.  Unfortunately, that does not bode well for the stiff challenge ahead.

1 minute ago, My Thai Life said:

LOL, my prejudices. Just go back and look at the press for the period to reveal your postjudices. Ending FOM was a major issue in the referendum. Deny it as much as you like - this state of denial seems to have become a fetish for some remainers on this forum. 

The rest of the world doesn't deny it.

 

I don't deny that some people voted for for that reason, I am just saying it wasn't they only reason. Some people definitely voted for a soft brexit  - I know at least 2. it would not take very many to add to the 48% who voted to stay in both the SM and EU for there to be no actual majority for leaving the SM. So you can't use the referendum result as justification to rule out any suggestion that involves staying in the SM.

 

I personally feel that insisting on a hard no deal brexit is more likely to get brexit canceled at the last moment as the ill-effects become more transparent.

5 minutes ago, tebee said:

Some people definitely voted for a soft brexit

There was no soft brexit on the ballot, as you know. You are getting very adept at changing the rules of your game to suit your ever-shifting tactics.

15 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Ending FOM was a major issue in the referendum.

And who are you that you decide what “a major issue” was and what people actually voted for?