E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

You have to factor in political tribalism and people saying one thing and doing another...

'Surveys show labour votes will leave if they do X'... They've *said* they'll leave, sure enough... come election time most will probably still vote Labour.

like the related 'Shy Tory Syndrome' where they vote conservative, but when polled say they'll vote for a different party [or that they haven't decided].


In short - people may say they'd flock to a new remain/reentery-focused party or to a new politically-centre party, when it comes down to it, most will probably vote the same way they always have.

 

All of the above falls neatly into the 'unicorns, flying pigs, etcetcetc' comment I made not two posts before that one.

And frankly, as it stands right now I want the UK to leave. The visa process is going to be doable for me, and the vindictive prick in me wants the leave voters to get exactly what they voted for so they can have a chance (But likely won't, because let's face it, it'll be branded as the 'big bad EU ****ing the UK over because brave blighty stood up to the bully' BS) to see that they were catastrophically wrong, and come crawling back to the EU in a generation or two and have to fight Spain to get back into the EU, probably sacrifice the 'great british pound', Gibraltar, and just about everything else the UK got its way on in the EU up to this March.

Something something, I've got mine, up yours jack.

 

Government admits it has 'run out of time' to find ships to bring emergency supplies after no-deal

 

The IFO Institue, a German think tank is saying Brexit is already hurting German firms and is asking the EU to give the UK concessions.

However, another German think tank Bertelsmann Stiftung believes Brexit could reduce UK GDP by 14% by 2030. Then again their estimates of per capita impact range between €220 and €4850 depending on the outcomes of Brexit so it just goes to show how uncertain the whole outlook is.

But yeah, project fear whatever, la, la, la. What a great idea. Remoaning? You betchya. A bad idea is a bad idea no matter if the majority thought it was a good one at one point in time.

 

I hate to tell you but that uncertainty is going to carry on for decades, the only thing that will change it is if businesses and people consider the UK economy to be a dead dog and avoid it or if it looks like we're not going to beat it over the head with a shovel.

People said the same about UKIP and look where that got us and them.

 

Yup. We ain't even started talking about a trade deal.

Locked into a bad withdrawl agreement will leave us in a vulnerable position, as too will be crashing out.

Oh you want a trade deal, well let's talk about fishing and Gibraltar for starters... drop your trousers UK and get yourself buttered up.

 

Yep, a paltry 1 seat was it? We're talking GE here, a 1 trick pony party is never going to cut it. UKIP weren't on their own in seeking a referendum, there were plenty of tories happy for it to happen too, as were there some Labour Euro Sceptics.

EDIT:

Yes, I've seen as much here with Labour. During the last general elections our MP done a rubbish job of defending her seat. There were lots of people saying they'd had enough and weren't going to vote Labour anymore. She won and also increased her majority too, go figure!!

 

No, they really were. It wasn't until UKIP started gaining voter share and MPs defected that seeking a referendum became a thing, Cameron basically adopted the policy of another party because he couldn't keep a lid on the Eurosceptics within his own party and after he did that it emboldened other Eurosceptics.

This all started because a party found it easier to quell critics by scapegoating someone else without realising how they were creating a monster that would latter threaten their very existence and when it did they attempted hide in the crowd in the hope that either the monster has its fill, gets bored, or someone finally slays it before they're the only one left standing.

 

Absolutely. Did you know that Japan has already said that it is not going to roll over the EU deal? It wants to re-negotiate a UK-Japan FTA from scratch. South Korea looks like it will do the same. The US has stated that an FTA with them will depend on respecting the GFA...

Even if there is a deal, there will be years of renegotiation with the EU. In a no-deal Brexit, there won't be any negotiations at all for a long time. Expect this to drag on for decades. No kidding.

Meanwhile: more taking back control!

 

IIRC that was wildly debunked and MigrationWatch quietly pulled the paper... but the truth hadn't got it's pants on by the time that lie was all over the internet.

 

Unlike the Tories the Americans remember who George Mitchell is

 

Even if the ERG did get the backstop removed from the withdrawal stuff, the RoI/EU would insist it go straight back in again as part of any 'future relationship' stuff.

 

And another trade deal that the UK won't benefit from, with Singapore.

For a protectionist, lumbering bureaucracy that is against free trade, the EU sure seems to be cracking on with trade deals all over the world...

 

Well, if it gave a few kippers a heart attack, it was all worth it.

 

Euro scepticism has been prevalent within British politics and more importantly, within British culture, well before UKIP even existed, it's always been under the surface in one way or another. I think it's much too simplistic to claim that UKIP and Cameron were the only catalysts. Our continued membership has been a topic for debate ever since we joined the EEC.

In 1979 the Labour manifesto stated they would oppose any move towards turning the community into a federation. Then again in 1983 they still wanted a UK withdrawal from the then EEC. As we've seen over the last few years, some of these Labour politicians still hold that view today, even if they won't admit it or skirt round it.

There was the Referendum Party that James Goldsmith formed to stand in the 1997 elections. Again a 1 trick pony party that failed to gain seats. The sentiment was there though and shared by enough people for that sentiment to be felt.

I think a referendum was always going to become a thing, the argument over our EU membership has gone on for years. This is the end result. Sure, UKIP brought the argument to the fore, but that was always going to happen. Like it or lump it, we as a nation have always been grudging members of the EU. Maybe UKIP and Farage caught the wave of anti EU sentiment at the right time, but they sure as hell didn't start the wave.

If that had been a leave supporter being flippant with incorrect news, you'd have crucified them, double standards?

 

Being under the surface is entirely different than being front and center, fascist views are under the surface in the UK but it would be an entirely different thing if the BNP were in government. It's not simplistic to point out that there's a difference between something like Communism being under the surface in the UK and a mainstream party adopting Communism policies.

And yes our membership has been a topic of debate ever since we joined the EEC but debating something is entirely different from adoption, owning slaves has been a topic of debate since we abolished slavery (it's impossible for it not to be in a population of millions) but just because it's a topic of debate doesn't mean a mainstream party should adopted it, capital punishment is a topic of debate, lower taxes, more housing, etc, etc.

It's not simplistic to point the finger at UKIP and Cameron, it's simplistic to assume that because something is a topic of debate that you (not you personally) should jump on the bandwagon.

And that Labour and the Referendum Party didn't get elected on their anti-EU stance didn't tell you anything? You've basically highlighted exactly why leaving the EU has previously not been an issue, that it wasn't until UKIP became a threat to the Conservatives that it became an issue, that UKIP only became a threat because we had decades of politicians using the EU as a scapegoat.

Sure you can say a referendum was always going to become a thing but if you're going to say that you have to ask yourself why, why by your own admittance parties that adopted an anti-EU stance in the past never gained traction and why that changed, you need to ask yourself why UKIP succeeded where others had failed.

And it's not just because they caught a 'wave', that's far to simplistic, there's always causes, you just need to find them, I've explained what i believe are the causes but it seems you disagree and are willing to dismiss them in favor of it being a 'wave', that it was always going to happen, etc, etc.

 

I'm not dismissing the role UKIP, Farage and Cameron had to play in the referendum happening. I'm certainly not defending them either. But I definitely disagree with you when you apportion blame on them and them alone. That viewpoint to me is certainly much too simplistic.

As I said, like it or lump it, as a nation we have been grudging members of the EU. Anti EU sentiment isn't new, was growing and it wasn't going to simply disappear. UKIP et. al. played that to their advantage.

In all honesty I think if it hadn't been him and UKIP it would only be a matter of time before it was someone else. As I said, they caught a wave and knew how to ride it. That isn't being simplistic at all. It's the cold hard truth, whether or not you like it.

If you want to discuss anti EU sentiment here in the UK, then you have to look at the historical as well as the more recent aspects to see the bigger picture. To ignore that is silly as far as I'm concerned.

 

So who called the referendum then?

What caused them to call a referendum?

And you said "In 1979 the Labour manifesto stated they would oppose any move towards turning the community into a federation." and "Then again in 1983 they still wanted a UK withdrawal from the then EEC" and they didn't get elected ipso facto anti EU sentiment was not an issue.

You said "There was the Referendum Party that James Goldsmith formed to stand in the 1997 elections. Again a 1 trick pony party that failed to gain seats." ipso facto anti EU sentiment was not an issue.

Like i said just because something is a topic of debate or a sentiment doesn't mean it's issue, much less that it's an issue that should be adopted by a politician or party who want the majority of the public to support them, to think otherwise is living in a bubble.

Seriously if you can't see that the only reason Cameron proposed a referendum on EU membership was for internal party political reasons, AKA: putting what's best for his party over what's best for the country, then IMO you're being willfully ignorant. Probably, based on how you're claiming it's others who are missing the bigger picture and being silly, it's because you want to justify the choice you made, that you weren't manipulated and that you made the choice you did on your own volition.

 

Corky, you are making lots of assumptions there. If you care to check back on my posts, I abstained from voting in the referendum. I didn't vote because I didn't feel I knew all the facts on the matter. So if you are going to make this personal, then at least have the courtesy of NOT making assumptions.

Now, you keep refusing to acknowledge the fact that anti EU sentiment has been a blot on the paper for a good while. Why is that? Why are you refusing to even consider that this has had a part to play in recent events? I'm not the one living in a bubble, who thinks that three key players are solely to blame for the referendum!!

 

As I've learned with you from previous experiences, this could go on and on forever because you will continue disagreeing with any viewpoint I hold, even if that may be valid. So back to work for me, I've finished my brew and I'll leave the debating to those who enjoy it more than me.