Brexit - am I stupid or what?

Despite your protestations, Jiffy, you're a reet canny lad.

 

Only because you were standing in the room with the lights out.

 

I don't disagree with you that it was a slim majority, nor do I disagree with you that there was a considerable amount of people that voted to remain - but given that it was a simple majority wins type of vote, how would you be feeling had it been 52% remain and 48% leave? Would that also be a vote to be disregarded and have us back to the polls again?

 

Whether we call it will of the people, or winners of the vote, the result is the same - - I meant nothing by that particular phrase, other than it is somewhat recognised in democracy. The problem I have is that there has been a campaign to discredit Brexit in every way possible - some of the suggested outcomes may be true, some of them most certainly are just a guess at best; much of what is being said now will also be lies, because that is what politicians the world over do - lie. I did not believe all that was being said about the perceived benefits of Brexit, no more than I believe the negative spin that is being spouted now - I had quite a long think about a number of factors, and made my decision.

Perhaps if the last two years had been spent looking at what we do once we leave and preparing for it, we might not actually be looking at doing it at any price - - the fact that negotiations didn't really get going until six months ago because our politicians were too busy fighting amongst each other is the biggest part of the problem for me; the second is that we have not been robust enough with the EU (always was our problem) so they have taken their time and shown a lot of arrogance in the process.

 

Why? There has been growing resentment in the UK over decades, Noisette, with the EU and nothing can change that. The EU has, itself, brought us to this situation by it's hostile and dismissive way of negotiating and we can't just blame the UK Government as the EU wishes us to.
It has now come to a point where, I think, it's either May's imperfect deal that ties us to the EU in a worse position, a Hard Brexit, trying to negotiate a Canadian, Norwegian, or other style of agreement which the EU will not entertain, remaining in the EU which will possibly cause riots on the street, a complete breakdown in UK politics and it's democratic way of living with screams of Betrayal that the politicians of all parties didn't have the courage to carry out the decision of the 2016 referendum. Should it go to a 2nd Referendum it now seems likely that there would be an increase of the majority of people voting OUT due to the belief that, true or not, that the EU has been hostile and aggressive in its negotiations............should that happen then it would be a Hard Brexit which a lot of people and Politicians would not be unhappy about.

 

No disagreement that there has been mismanagement of the UK, and part of that mismanagement is that we do apply EU law quite strictly in comparison with other countries - but, the EU does not need to be used as a scapegoat, as it is quite capable of causing its own reputational damage.

I disagree with @ARMANDII that a lot more people would vote out - indeed, if there were a second referendum I think that the balance would shift the other way (I would guess 46% leave, 54% stay), purely because so many people have been scared by the thought of Brexit by the constant, daily barrage telling us how bad Brexit will be. Indeed, I also believe that it is the intention to widen the vote to younger people, which will bolster the remain vote, wrongly in my opinion.

So, if (when) that day comes, what is the message to the people that voted to leave twice, were in the majority once, had their vote disregarded and had democracy fail them?

See, it is OK to shout for another referendum if you are on the remain side, but if that were to happen by leave voters following a close remain vote, I doubt very much that it would be just as acceptable.

 

Nearly correct, Noisette, but not quite. The mismanagement over the years has been down solely to the incompetent, and ingrained policies of our own Political Parties, (of all colours}, rather than the EU. So we don't have to use the EU as a scapegoat because we are quite aware who is to blame for the state of all things in the Uk. But it is the ever growing EU mass legislation, blind, faceless, bureaucracy, being imposed without any ability to have any say, coming from unelected officials based in another country. But, I think you have to admint that the EU is being mismanaged itself which is leading to a uprise in several countries of Right Wing Extremists, while other countries are not happy at being held to ransom by the huge debts that the EU holds against them. I'm not a political animal nor am I a Brexiteer or Remainer but I do recongise that historical and geographical factors do play an important part in a lot of the UK's population resentment/dislike of the EU.

 

The arrogance of the EU, I think in regard to negotiations at least, is their antics of successively saying that a proposal wasn't good enough, without saying why or giving a counter proposal. The EU don't own us - they think they do, but they don't, so a negotiation should have been just that and not Theresa May being dismissed like a naughty school child. There has been other cases of their arrogance (light bulbs, kettle wattages, fining us because we haven't met a target that was a guess at best [where does that fine money go?]); and the whole time before the referendum, and since, the EU has done very little (if anything) to attempt to sell us the positives of being in the union, nor have they tried to understand why so many people are so unhappy with them (and it isn't just the UK).

I wholly agree that the land border between the UK and Ireland is something that is not a trivial point, but I also agree that it should have been solved long ago and without the need for a hard physical border at that point - there would have needed to be checks around the shores of Ireland and NI as well as around the UK shores and of course the EU shores. I'm not sure exactly what the resolution could or would have been, but to begin working on it as late as they did is part of the reason that a resolution wasn't found (that, and the EU just saying 'not good enough, try again').

 

I think that none of this would have happened if the EU had used some common sense. As with all business negotiations, there usually needs to be a little bit of give and take. I honestly can't remember what Cameron was asking of the EU but I seem to remember that it was some minor points to be changed.

They flatly refused to budge on anything, which is a silly thing to do to one of the few net major contributors to the EU budget. It's quite normal to give a little bit with one of your best customers.

What I do remember is that a number of people that I spoke to who were fairly happy (not overjoyed) to be in the EU felt that the EU had insulted the UK. Whether it's true that it was an insult, or not, you don't treat a good customer that way.

Cameron compounded the error with sending out 9 million pounds worth of non-information. This was eventually followed by Obama sticking his two pennyworth in as well.

I think that if those three things hadn't happened we would still be in the EU. I meet hundreds of people a week and that was the impression that I got from them. A lot of the 'No' vote was a protest vote. Whether that is a basis for voting is neither here nor there when emotions become involved.

What we really need is a Benevolent Dictatorship. I vote for Woo.