To ask what Leavers are still hoping for from Brexit

[Bearbehind]

So we’ve failed twice to actually leave the EU on the dates specified which has hopefully proved that we will never leave without a deal.

Therefore the only option is to leave with a worse deal, or just give the whole thing up as a bad idea.

What do Leavers think can be salvaged from this epic mess?

I think it was foolish to give only two extreme options in the original referendum; but then I suppose it depends on what compromises the remaining EU countries would or would not have been prepared to grant us if we had voted for anything other than 'stay in with no changes at all' or 'leave completely'.

The question was stay or leave. That isn't extreme but binary. What would you have asked?

I think a third option would have made all the difference:
A. Stay in as currently
B. Leave completely with no deal
C. Leave but seek a largely trade-only deal, such as with Norway & Switzerland, which will give us benefits and enable us to retain sovereignty on the understanding that we are not included in the actual formulating of those trade deal plans - but that we have a veto on plans that we don't want to participate on and, fairly, the EU retain the right to exclude us from certain plans if they wish

I would have possibly added D. Stay but demand more vetoes and freedom to ignore anything we don't like, but I don't see how this could possibly be tenable or indeed fair on (or acceptable to) the remaining members.

I would also have asked people to select their second choice, if the winning choice was not acceptable to the remaining EU or could not be reasonably agreed on.

At least if B had won (although I think it would have been the least popular option), it would avoided all of this wrangling, whatever the consequences.

If A had won, it would just be as we were.

If C had won, it would make it very easy to shut down the strident 'leave means leave no-dealers'. I fail to see how we couldn't have the same deal as Norway has. We have a much greater population and (partly because of that and our language) far more global power, so if they can make it work, why couldn't we?

I think we should be a sovereign country that makes it's own laws

@Madroid, could you name at least one law foisted on us by the EU that has not been ratified by Westminster? I'm about to hit my scratcher but can check back in about 8 hours. Surely that's plenty of time to find to find loads.

In Scotland and letting you know this cause we are not all remainers. Personally, my hope is we still leave.

I was unaware that sovereignty had more than one definition or was open to interpretation. I thought sovereignty means the ability of a country to make it's own laws in it's own elected legislature.
It's simply not the case that parliament ratifies EU law that's not how it works. Europe law is what operates across the 28 countries. It doesn't need ratifying by any of them individually because that is what is already in operation. And that is , to me, dangerously unaccountable. It's alright while the leadership of the EU are relatively benign. But the EU as a whole are moving towards the right and historically it hasn't got a good track record of democracy.
When my elected representative votes for something I fundamentally disagree with I want the chance to hold them to account. I want democracy. Not a small voice as one of 28 countries. Plus the EU has some v questionable ways of operating eg the 6 monthly swap from Brussels to Strasbourg, the lack of audited accounts ever, the mep expenses. No one has effective oversight. The institutions simply aren't established in the EU government.
Unfortunately I think if we want a decent trading arrangement with the EU we will have to play hard ball and leave first. We are an important trading partners for those 27 countries and they will be free to admit that once we've left and will be Keen to make an agreement with the UK once their political survival is no longer tied up with the deal.

Many older people who were old enough to have the vote then have expressed the opinion that they were deceived by the original claims that they were simply voting to join a trading bloc

Many older people have deficient memories - Government literature provided during the 1975 referendum made it quite clear that the EEC was more than a trading bloc.

I've read reports as well that the EU plans are for the Euro and Schengen among other intentions of closer integration, which were NOT widely broadcast in the run-up to the election

The UK has clear permanent opt outs on Schengen and the Euro.

on thousands upon thousands of legally-binding measures reaching into all facets of daily life

Apart from EU immigration, the British government still determines the vast majority of policy over every issue of greatest concern to British voters – including health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security. The UK controls more than 98 per cent of its public expenditure.

I was more bothered by the Scottish referendum, tbh. I was very much hoping that they would vote to stay in the UK

Part of the Indyref Project Fear was that the only way for Scotland to remain in the EU was to remain in the UK. England (and Wales) voting to leave the EU whilst Scotland voting to remain has just given a massive leg up for Scottish independence.

I was unaware that sovereignty had more than one definition or was open to interpretation

Sovereignty is more than “we get to make our own laws”. Successive UK governments haven chosen to pool aspects of its sovereignty to achieve things it couldn’t on its own - in terms of economics, defence, environmental sustainability etc. And the UK still will pool aspects of its sovereignty, e.g. in NATO.

Plus the EU has some v questionable ways of operating eg the 6 monthly swap from Brussels to Strasbourg, the lack of audited accounts ever

EU accounts are audited. This really is a tired old Leave trope.

fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

We are an important trading partners for those 27 countries and they will be free to admit that once we've left and will be Keen to make an agreement with the UK

And we’re back to “they need us more than we need them”.

I'm reasonably well off and have a pretty comfortable existence. I would vote (and did vote) for things to remain the same. There is a whole tranche of people who are very much not well off and they voted for something/anything to change. Right wingers pushed and pushed an "immigration problem" based spiel that immigration and not austerity policies was the reason everything was so shit. I think there are 2 main reasons that labour has not backed remain: 1) to not disenfranchise these people, 2) being part of the EU makes you legally obliged to open up big national projects to European tender, so if you are building a new train or infrastructure you have to let European companies bid. Not being in the EU could let you be more "protectionist" of national industries?

Wikipedia pg on sovereignty is interesting.

Sovereignty has nothing to do with whether a political system is democratic.

Accountability is what a previous (Brexit supporting) poster described that they want, not sovereignty. You can argue that our system (FPTP) is pretty bad for accountability. My MP (Libdem) does his best but fundamentally, has no influence in govt. Best he can do for me is table a question for govt to answer IF my query seems important enough. The LibDems were punished severely for being in a coalition govt, proportional representation was rejected, so the British electorate have opted to have less potential accountability as a rule, not more.

Suggests lots of disjointed political moods when someone says they want sovereignty, misdescribe what sovereignty is, actually describe accountability, but the 2nd-to-last referendum explicitly voted against creating a political system with more accountability. Argh.

ps: I'm not such a fan of PR nowadays, though, UKIP, BNP, EDL, they'd all get into power at national level. Not good. We are so screwed. :(

To leave the EU I would the number one hope for Leavers.

Am I being facetious? Yes and no.

Many Leavers believed and believe so strongly and passionately in no longer belonging to the EU that they are not so fussed how it is executed.

Oh and while I'm here not all Leavers are thick and racist. SHOCK I KNOW

It's simply not the case that parliament ratifies EU law that's not how it works. Europe law is what operates across the 28 countries. It doesn't need ratifying by any of them individually because that is what is already in operation. And that is , to me, dangerously unaccountable. It's alright while the leadership of the EU are relatively benign. But the EU as a whole are moving towards the right and historically it hasn't got a good track record of democracy

Agree with you Madroid.

sausageroll
I suppose in your divorce analogy the UK is the poor little batttered wife, suffering from the long-term abuse of her "controlling, overbearing or dictatorial" husband.
Leavers are always pulling the victim card, aren't they?
Please give us some examples how the UK has been "deprived of its own sovereignty".

Also, as someone has already said, you were the first person to mention 'racism' on this thread. This is something else Leave supporters regularly do. Again, pulling out the victim card before anything has been said or done.

Leaving was never going to be a simple, straightforward process - surely everybody realised that?

Liam Fox didn't. He thought that the deals should be the easiest in history. Now that he's been in post for getting on for three years, how well has he done? Well, a deal with the Faroes is on the cards. What for, I wonder? I think something is possible with Switzerland...... Not exactly a great long list to reel off for something which was supposedly easy.

I don't think we will be allowed to leave now.
And here we are again. The victim card.
Poor little us. We wanted a cake and eat it deal and the bullies wouldn't give it to us...

don't think we will be allowed to leave now.
That's why so many people will vote for the Brexit party in the upcoming European elections. It shouldn't have been necessary but it's probably the only way to shake the Tories up and make them do what they promised.

It's simply not the case that parliament ratifies EU law that's not how it works. Europe law is what operates across the 28 countries. It doesn't need ratifying by any of them individually because that is what is already in operation

This doesn’t even make sense.

EU directives have to be transposed into UK law - they don’t just automatically apply (as regulations do).

How many UK Acts and SIs are derived from EU directives? HoP have calculated it’s less than 14%.

Add in regulations and it’s around 60% - but some of those regulations are not applicable to the UK and a large proportion will be technical measures that would never be counted as law if they were adopted within the UK legal system.

And you’re ignoring the fact that the UK has been instrumental in developing and agreeing EU law in the first place.

Want more accountability? Stop electing fuckwit UKIP MEPs that have no interest in taking part in the EU parliamentary process.

I also believe that, had the option been to remain allied as trading partners on favourable terms but to retain sovereignty over our own laws been on the table, a great many leave-voters would have voted in favour of that

Basically keep the same trading arrangement but opt of laws we don't like. We know this wasn't possible because the EU told us before the referendum. They have consistently maintained this position for the last three years.

The EU has told us what they would do and then they have done it.

My personal expectation is that a deal will finally be struck so that we technically are no longer part of the EU but, in reality, find most things very little different in the long term

In which case we would still have ceded aspects of sovereignty to the EU and we will still be paying money to the EU.

Do you really think No Deal Brexiteers will support this?

Brexit has split the country down the middle and your best hope places us a position that will satisfy no one and keep the debate open like a festering sore for both sides.

This is the very definition of a national disaster and the only good thing for me is at least I didn't vote for it.

I voted remain but all the difficulties untangling ourselves from the EU have convinced me we need to leave. If we don't do it now we'll never be able to get out.
My parents generation voted to join the Common Market to facilitate trade, not to become part of a European super state.

My parents generation voted to join the Common Market to facilitate trade, not to become part of a European super state

As has already been explained on this thread and several other threads the concept of 'closer political union' was explained clearly in the 1975 referendum.

This ideal has never been hidden and was explicit then and now.

Your parents generation had it explained very clearly in a referendum that did not have the same level of media spin and lies.

My parents generation voted to join the Common Market to facilitate trade, not to become part of a European super state.

Your parent’s generation did not vote to join the EEC, they voted to remain in 1975 (the UK joined in 1973).

It was made quite clear at the time that the EEC was more than just “a Common Market” - from the 1975 Government leaflet:

The aims of the Common Market are:

To bring together the peoples of Europe.

To raise living standards and improve working conditions.

To promote growth and boost world trade.

To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.

To help maintain peace and freedom.

Windowsareforcheaters

It’s “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen” not “ever closer political union”.

And Cameron negotiated a UK opt out from further integration in 2015.

Continuity - UK law was supersedes by EU law when we agreed the Maastricht Treaty. That's why That her was so against it. John Major signed it.

• That her should be Thatcher

The state of the EU in 2016 could never have been explained very clearly in 1975. It has changed out of all recognition in the intervening years. Its powers and reach have increased dramatically by five further major treaties being signed and 19 more countries joining.

I assure you Window people voted for an economic union in 1975. And then there only 7 countries in it. There was no sense of a super state. Don't forget the war generations were very much still in evidence then. If there had been any idea of a political union it would not have had there support.

Your parent’s generation did not vote to join the EEC, they voted to remain in 1975 (the UK joined in 1973).

As one who did vote in that Referendum, I was about to post the same and people did know that they were voting for the list that Continuity shows. What I think no one could predict at the time, was how Communism would collapse and that the countries in E Europe would become eligible for membership. Who promoted their cause - why the Tory party, under John Major, no doubt influenced by the Americans, who wanted to pull them away from the influence of Russia.