AIBU to ask why you for Brexit?

[BillySmut56]

I'm politically neautral on Brexit, it's a complicated issue, but I'm interested in the consequences that are coming out now. If you voted for Brexit, what were your reasons?

I don't believe all I read in the newspapers.

We know it's too sell the papers and make money, and to try to influence people, you'd have to be stupid to not know that, and no one on here is stupid.

Some times you read something on one paper and look to see if anyone else has written it, to see the other side.

But views I have held about what deal we might get are now in print, having been said by political animals, the thought process I have is there in print for all to read. It's not me making it up, it;s things being discussed in rooms with people who make the laws on this Island in and Europe as a whole.

So really there is so much conjuncture that no one will know for sure till it's finally done.

For example TB promised us a referendum, people voted on basis of referendum, TB then signed us up to more EU without a referendum. So where was the democracy? or do you believe democracy does not need to be based on the truth?

Thus proving UK democracy itself is flawed. Nothing is going to stop the above scenario happening again with other issues it it? Thats why its alittle hypocritical to call European Parliament undemocratic when UK has plenty of its own problems despite being held up as a beacon (we need our sovereignty, independence etc).

frumpety

I think you buy them in that odd colour - usually in those old fashioned Gentleman’s Outfitters which have yellow cellophane over the window in a last ditch attempt to prevent those things that have been on display for the last decade fading.

@scaryteacher I used NATO as an example as most posters are familiar with it. When referencing democracy within NATO I was suggesting once the initial decisions are taken by the NAC then boots on the ground military decisions are not democratic. That is what I meant by limited democracy within NATO.

Also, Article 5 is binding in a way EU decisions are. We have already agreed 'an attack on one is an all'.

I do find it disturbing that US economic colonialism buys influence. The Marshal Plan being a prime example. The EU acts in some ways as bulwark against this despite being the main beneficiary of it.

It is sometimes difficult to come up with examples that most posters can easily pick up on. Not everyone has the same high nerd quotient as me. Which is a good thing.

or do you believe democracy does not need to be based on the truth?

Should have added that this needs to be mentioned to the big red bus passengers. Might get that £350 million a week and Turkey join the EU.

The primacy of EU law is a legal issue not a democratic issue.

Where there is conflict EU law is supreme. Yep. Parliament agreed to this.

Parliamentary sovereignty is also being challenged by our own Supreme Court.

This takes us into a discussion of separation of powers. Most countries have a more balanced separation than the U.K. which is why some people feel so strongly about it. Most countries have a written constitution though.

you have told me David Cameron had the file on all the bad things that will happen, it's so bad that the current lot won't let anyone read it...
Then why was this not used to stop Brexit.....

You don't hide the killer argument...

David Cameron has called Brexit a “mistake, not a disaster” in unguarded comments caught on camera at the World Economic Forum in Davos

I voted leave but now I'm not sure. I voted that way because it was costing the U.K. a lot to be a member...hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The gov report in question was commissioned under Mays government not Cameron’s. saying Brexit is a mistake not a disaster is hardly a ringing endorsement is it? Not that Cameron’s opinion matters he will go down as one of Britain’s worst PMs.

Mummy, the gov appear hell bent on delivering Brexit and dismiss any negativity.

Their not doing a very good job of hiding all the negativity, as if you read some of the papers, you would believe the sky was going to fall in.

No Planes.
No Finance income.
No Medical goods.
No jobs.

I do understand all your fears, and all the things that can go wrong, there is still a part of me that things 7% growth instead of 15% growth sounds much better than the UK will loose 8% growth.

There will be gains, but we have to wait and see, they are saying maybe 25% cut in prices on clothing and footwear and also food will be cheaper, and this will help people on lower incomes.
with sterling down, british goods are selling well. is this so bad?

I genuinely wanted to know why people are happy with NATO or don't question its role, but dislike the idea of an EU Army. If we were to stay in the EU and there were to be an EU Army a reasonable assumption would be that the UK would have been one of the leading members. By contrast, NATO's Supreme Commanders have always been American, with Deputies sometimes British and sometimes German.

We are constantly told 'NATO has kept the peace'. It's impossible to say why something didn't happen, so it's a statement which is impossible to test. NATO did not prevent a bloody civil war in Yugoslavia, so it certainly did not keep the peace in that country.

How many Operations which NATO has been involved with have been as a result of a genuine threat to the UK or its near neighbours? NATO has been heavily involved in Afghanistan - when did that country threaten us? Unless you want to go back to the 19th Century Great Game with Russia and British India?

The US spent a lot of money on the Arms race - some argue that the aim was to bankrupt the Soviet Union. I doubt whether it was as simple as that but the Soviet Union collapsed. To me this poses the question, is Putin's Russia more of a threat to the rest of Europe now than the Soviet Union was?

No Planes.

I for one, having been caught out by Monarch going bust, won't be booking any flights in a hurry, until there is a cast iron guarantee that there is an agreement. There is no such agreement at present. I don't want talk, it needs to be something with signatures on with legal force.

Thankfully, I paid Monarch by credit card, so I did get my money back.

Nothing is going to stop the above scenario happening again
Agree to disagree, if enough people stand up, by any means possible, to defend our democracy then we can stop lying politicians giving away our democracy ever again.

Moussemoose Nato is not a good comparison for the EU. Military campaign are not permanent, so people do have the ability to change their minds over time in the next election. The EU is trying to be permanent with no ability to change commitment at a general election.

Julie, democracy was never given away.

Mummy, food prices have gone up and the export boom is likely to be short lived. I can’t see how imported food and clothing will get cheaper after Brexit

GhostofFrank, that's your opinion, I disagree. I didn't vote Brexit based on clothes prices, it was a little more important than that. Something I would like remainers to consider more often.

Ok then I think saying a woman is posting in an hysterical way smacks of misogyny.

If you're going to quote, do so accurately.

Actual words:

Nobody said 'a woman posting on politics is hysterical' - I did say that posters were posting in an hysterical way ^though.
It is entirely different.
I was posting about politics, I'm a woman - I do not think 'woman posting about politics equals hysterical'.^

Claiming 'misogyny!' based on incorrect reading of text is verging on the hysterical imo - no matter what sex you are.

Mousse You may have a high nerd quotient but you know sod all about the military. There is no way that military decisions can be democratic once troops are committed, be it on the ground, in the air, or at sea. The CO issues an order and it's obeyed, end of. Hopefully, that order is serving the general strategy laid out, but even the best ORBAT may not survive the first engagement.

I would argue that Article 5 isn't as binding as the Acquis, as it is not subject to a Court imposing it, and the NAC has to agree that the Article 5 conditions have been met. We can withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty any time we choose, without all the crap associated with leaving the EU.

Given that the U.S. has been bankrolling the defence of Europe for 70 years next year, don't you think that a little influence, and indeed, thanks, are in order? There is no credible defence of Europe without NATO and the troops, materiel, money and nuclear umbrella supplied to NATO by the US

Peregrina NATO works and has been proven to do so. There is no military action without unanimity at the NAC, and the Perm Reps,and Mil Reps who sit on the NAC are taking instruction from their governments. I am against an EU set of Forces ( no point in an Army without a Navy or Air Force), as it duplicates NATO efforts, and there is no point. An EU set of Forces answerable to, paid by, and loyal to the EU, as opposed to NATO forces, seconded by their governments, are very different things. If you can't see that the former is what PESCO is about, then you have blinkers on. The UK has always been opposed to the EU having its own Forces, not least because UK Forces are Crown servants. Bit of a conflict when you have to swear allegiance to the EU and abjure your national loyalties ( and yes, UK military officers seconded to the EU Military Staff have to do that).

FYI, DSACEUR is a permanent Brit post whilst COS is German.

NATO had no mandate to intervene in Kosovo from the UN, despite seeking a Security Council Resolution as China and Russia blocked it. I think NATO was dampened either way; non intervention would have lead to more ethnic cleansing and international condemnation, and intervening wasn't going to be popular either. The EU hardly prevented the civil war either, so no point blaming NATO.

NATO intervention in Afghanistan was at the request and under the aegis of, the UN in the form of ISAF. Many non NATO nations also aided ISAF with money as well as troops. If you Google the list, it's interesting.

Putin's Russia is rearming and investing in its military. He has tried asymmetric warfare in the Crimea, and is eyeing up the Baltic States. Sweden and Finland are both twitchy at present. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are on edge. That is where, imo, Article 5 will be triggered. Putin will try to take back his near abroad and extend his sphere of influence in little bites. He will use Syria as a huge base once all the fighting is done.

I continue to be baffled by this idealistic notion leavers have about the fact they think leaving means we will no longer be bound by rules we can’t control

a) I’ve yet to see a Leaver name a single EU rule that adversely effected them significantly enough to justify the cost of leaving, in fact I’ve rarely seen any examples given at all

b) we’ve pledged to retain full alignment with EU regulations in respect of the NI border in order to avoid a hard border situation

c) we had a seat at the table in the rule making process and only a tiny proportion of decisions went against us- now we’ll have no say yet have to abide by their rules in order to access the SM

Not exactly ‘taking back control is it?

@scaryteacher

There is no way military decisions can be democratic

Exactly that was my point. We are bound via a treaty to an organisation that by definition can not be democratic. I will not comment on your knowledge, or lack thereof. By being in NATO we cede power and most Brexiters are fine with that but do not want to cede any power to a more democratic body.

The US have bankrolled Western European safety since WW2, but then they did make a profit out of WW2. Not the right thread but The Marshal plan: help or neo colonialism? An interesting topic.

Ongoing legal overview of laws is not the same as a binding treaty. In relation to separation of powers we are unusual in the U.K. in the lack of legal oversight parliament has imposed upon it. With the relatively recent introduction of the Supreme Court this looks like it is changing. My point being legal oversight is common and legitimate.

The European Court does have the final say, yes that has removed some power from the U.K.. I think as part of any international organisation you will have to make compromises. I am happy to do so and it is quite constitutional. I can see why allowing a supranational body to make decisions about the U.K. concerns some people. The benefits of the EU and common legislation outweigh the notional disadvantage of ceding some power in my opinion.

Thankyou for the rather patronising explanation scaryteacher about NATO. 'NATO works' is a statement which is bandied about, but never examined in any depth. Whether the Peace it keeps/has kept is as good for the rest of the world as it is for America is IMO a valid question. This isn't really the place for that discussion - although Moussemoose has also made some pertinent observations.

It's rather like so many of what we might call 'Red Bus' statements, about the EU, which when examined turned out not to be quite so simple:

We will regain Sovereignty - TM herself told us we never lost it
£350 million a week for the NHS - the Leave campaign disowned that one within 24 hours of the result, and the figure was a lie......But it would have been good if Johnson and Gove had immediately made a pledge to campaign for the NHS.
Turkey is about to join the EU - it's been trying for the better part of 40 years and is now less likely to. (And with this statement, and Farage's poster, the implied threat of the Muslim hoards descending, which Gove, Johnson and chums didn't disassociate themselves from.)

And so on. I heard of one EU law not being beneficial, but examining it, our Government chose not to make representations during the consultation period. So once again, back to a problem with Westminster.

The tragedy of Brexit is that given UK's special position in the EU - it would only make sense if the hard Brexit option was potentially benefitial. It isn't therefore Brexit would likely mean we lose our seat at the table for nothing. Yet we continue down the nonsensical path:

UK weighing customs union deal after Brexit

Theresa May’s Brexit advisers are secretly considering whether Britain could strike a customs union deal covering trade in goods with the EU, a move that would severely limit the UK’s ability to strike out on its own.

I would assume that if the hard Brexit option was beneficial for the majority of the country, the impact assessments would have been done, in the greatest detail possible, and released with great fanfare. That it's only potentially beneficial for an extremely small number of already wealthy, predominantly men, rather gives the game away.

The secrecy is only necessary to protect the lies of the Leave campaign from further debunking.

So not only do we optimistically end up in the same position we are currently in, minus the voice we have in the EU, we'll end up with more sour relations with our neighbours. In fact, I've always stuck to this in my defense on remain, rather than bang on about economics. Interestingly, the FT have an article today detailing things from the EU's perspective. They are afraid the UK will diverge to gain advantage from the EU's high standards (undercutting electricity by removing environmental limits). They fear a lack of control in this respect - I can only see this lead to a souring of UK:EU relations leading to something broader and deeper than a trade war. Just crap basically.