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?

Playing exactly into Russia, China and the Trump's US hands: weaker Europe and weaker Britain.

There is nothing that is just one sided.
Most of this is about the it's going to be so bad.
That's is not true, and no I am not going to list the sides.
Someone said the Liberals in the is debate are upset because they are not used to being on the outside of things.
They have lost in so many ways this last 2 years that they never ever expect, and are having a hard time coming to terms with this..
Do you think this is true?

Nobody ever answers this: why no plan though?

Just something, anything....

Yes definitely. The liberals are no longer in control & they have no idea how to handle it. Apart from lashing out at leavers online that is.
It’s all a bit embarrassing tbh.

It is a mistake to frame the argument as winners and losers. People are fighting and upset because they see very real threats. Threats to the economy, way of life, social cohesion. We're living through a time of transition. We read about this in history books, but for most people, this is the first time we are actually witnessing and being part of a major change in society. Perhaps the last time this happened was the Suez crisis - end of empire, bloody nose for the UK's reduced status in the world, new US world order, bringing down of the institutions and old way of doing things. And that finished with the UK entering the EEC and the Thatcher rein. So, no, not a simple football match with sore losers!

The EU is a prison. We can't trade with the rest of the world without having 'permission'. The rules and regulations and sheer red tape is ridiculous!
We have been asset stripped by foreign banks and European big business. We have no real manufacturing and we are service industry minions.
And all the while, the EU build a few roads and pay for some nice buildings whilst we give them billions.
Brexit means that, we will be able to trade with the world, our exporters will become stronger, we may even revive some of our manufacturing capabilities.
We can choose who we let in and kick out all the EU criminals who are clogging up our jails.
Immigration is VERY important, but we need the best and not the waifs and strays of the EU and the world.
Yes, it's going to be very hard for a few years, but we will benefit greatly in the long run.
The EU is breaking up and no one can see it.

We have been asset stripped by foreign banks and European big business

I am not a Trump fan at all. But holy Moses he can strip an asset.

"The EU is a prison. We can't trade with the rest of the world without having 'permission'"

LOL. Actually the EU enables us to trade with the whole world on good terms which will be inaccessible to us after separation. Sure we can independently strike a deal with Mongolia or Burkina Faso or have Trump asset strip us and call it a new era in global trade, but that's about it.

I am tempted to say Dream On PoisonousSmurf.

May is right now crowing about trade deals with China - but we are still in the EU, so the rest of them haven't stopped us.

Our coal mines won't be re-opened - a shut pit has to be maintained to be kept ready for operation.

We can kick out EU criminals now, but so far we have chosen not to use the powers we have. Much better to send 'Go home' letters to people who have legitimately been in this country for donkeys years, working and paying tax, because that's the easy option.

Is it going to be hard for a few years? Deals were going to be made in an afternoon. Deals were going to be signed by 16th September, 2016 according to Fox or was it Davis. They went silent when they weren't.

Rules and regulations - sheer red tape. Ah yes, Grenfell - rules were too onerous there.

The EU is a prison. We can't trade with the rest of the world without having 'permission'. The rules and regulations and sheer red tape is ridiculous!

Some people appear to have limited understanding of how trade works in the modern world. Big shout out to Cameron for putting such an enormous decision in their hands.

We have been asset stripped by foreign banks and European big business

You mean successive UK governments have either sold off national assets or enabled UK companies to be sold to the highest bidder? And not just to European countries - you can add in the US, China, Russia, India, Canada, the Middle East as well.

Maybe you could start with the removal of regulations on overseas investment by former Tory Chancellor Geoffrey Howe in 1979?

I know some papers don't report it but all these comments about how the EU budget is in trouble as said long ago.
How some countries don't want what MB is saying will happen, must be coming from somewhere, or someone would be denying it.
Oh and the Swiss, they want something different as well NOW.

Yep, the Swiss model. 10% personal income tax and, sorry but no NHS.

Rebecca, it seems that you are saying that brexiters voted to leave because of hurt feelings rather than facts. I don't think they would agree with you.

No, many will keep defending their vote to the death, whatever the facts. Power to the rational people!

Peregrina Militarily, NATO does work, and has done do for 70 years next year. If it didn't demonstrably work, then the US wouldn't keep contributing to keep it going either in Brussels, SHAPE down at Mons, Naples etc. It works because there is a common framework for one thing only, and that is defence. If it didn't work, then those countries coming out from the Warsaw pact wouldn't have applied to join; Sweden, Finland and Austria wouldn't be PARP countries; Montenegro wouldn't have applied to accede (and been successful last year). Even the French decided to 'rejoin' in 2009.

If it didn't work then the EUMS wouldn't be modelled on it; Mogherini wouldn't bother attending the NAC, and I'm sure Angelina wouldn't have bothered dropping by HQ NATO on Wednesday this week and schmoozing with the Sec Gen..

Article 5, and the threat of US involvement has kept the peace, and I don't think it would have been kept without that, before the wall came down in 1989.

Instead of accusing me of being patronising, why don't you explain, in detail, why you think NATO doesn't work?

Mousse You are comparing apples and oranges and I suspect are very well aware of being disingenuous here. NATO membership requires us to pool our defences, but it does not lead to lack of sovereignty or being outvoted by the weighting of QMV as in the EU, as the decisions in the NAC have to be unanimous. We can pull out of NATO ops or not contribute to one if we see fit. For instance, we don't contribute to the NATO heavy airlift capability based in Hungary, as we have our own C17s, but we do contribute to the operational costs of FORACS, along with 8 other NATO nations.

NATO doesn't set our VAT rates; our trade terms with others; force a bank to sell off branches; it doesn't hoover up debt via its bank; insist on seeing a nations budget; or have comment to make on how a nation runs its internal affairs (as examples). It certainly odesn't beggar nations as the EU has done to Greece, neither have NATO policies condemned a generation of youngsters in the PIIGS to no jobs. It is purely a defence organisation, unlike the EU. There is no Acquis with NATO; no supranational body making decisions for us. If we disagree with the NAC we say so, and we are heard.

I'd love to hear how you think democracy can work on a submarine or on the battlefield.

Fly The EU are worried about losing our money - nothing more and nothing less.

Our money, as in our contribution to the budget? I think that's only secondary. The FT article quite clearly outlines the thing the EU are shitting themselves about: a UK-wide deregulation in all areas, not just tax, and state-aided competition. This would directly undermine the high-standards, protectionist EU market place. The EU realise that the UK once out of the block would be an enormous threat on the doorstep and there will be little they can do about it. Other than trade wars.

I asked what I thought was a civilised question, why are people not worried about American dominated organisations, but unhappy with ones in which they can be a leading partner: - to get chapter and verse about how this that and the other operates in NATO. It does seem we are not allowed to question NATO.

Some argue that the Americans keep financing it because it assists their form of colonialism. I am neither saying that I agree or disagree, but Trump has been making noises about not putting money into NATO - because other nations don't contribute what he thinks is sufficient. Or is it because the Americans have realised that with China on the rise, their time of hegemony is likely to end? One could write whole theses on these questions, I am quite sure.

But it's a different debate as to why people voted for Brexit/whether they are happy with how things are going now/whether someone else could to a better job.

@scaryteacher

I'd love to hear how you think democracy can work on a submarine or on the battlefield

As I have explained twice I know democracy doesn't work in military situations which is why I gave NATO as an example. The fact that decisions aren't unanimous in a military setting is why I gave NATO as an example.

I am aware NATO is not a direct comparison but it is a long term binding treaty that most people have heard of. NATO in general is a discussion for another thread, it's not quite as simple as you imply.

There is a movement within the UN to implement Trans National Treaties in relation to trans national corporations. Inevitably in a global economy these are going to be more common and more important, all will involve ceding some power to another body. They are ferociously complex in legal terms.

At a point in time when global treaties are going to become necessary retreating from the EU because you don't want to cede any sovereignty is the equivalent of Canute asking the sea to retreat.

The EU is a democratic organisation the U.K. will not win every decision (98% is quite good though) yes European laws do overrule UK laws in certain circumstances, I understand some people are concerned by this.

On balance I believe it is better to be within the organisation shaping change at the expense of some loss of sovereignty rather than having the same rules imposed upon us by an outside body if we want to trade.

Having caught up with the thread I've noticed two things: it has been mostly Leavers answering questions, followed by some Remainers refuting their replies and then telling Leavers why they really voted Leave.

So I would like to reverse the process and ask Remainers to explain their reasons for how they voted and then us Leavers can respond with why we really think you voted.

it has been mostly Leavers answering questions

Well the clue is in the OP?

@SilverySurfer in the post prior to yours I explain one of the reasons I voted remain. We live in a trans national world. We need to align ourselves with a body that gives us more power than we can exert as a single nation. Within the EU we were a voice people listened to. They didn't always agree and we didn't win every battle but we have considerably more influence inside than we will outside.

For me, although I was sorely tempted to give Cameron a punch in the nose, I believed that the status quo and taking a full part in the EU was better than a leap in the dark, especially one which was promoted by the likes of Farage and Gove. What finally clinched it was the Good Friday Agreement - a hard fought agreement which could so easily be jeopardised, as we are now beginning to see.

Yes but Even the EU admit France and Germany more or less set the rules and out vote everyone on who gets the jobs..

If the UK had held any power at all you would now not be on here...