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?

The only convincing reasons I have heard for Leave is that it allows the likes of J R-M to make shedloads of money. It also gives the right wingers the chance to smash the NHS good and proper, instead of doing it piecemeal as now.

Now the first reason, isn't one which is going to convince me, because J R-M won't be sharing his largesse with me, and as for the second, like the majority in this country, I value having an NHS and don't want to see us go further down the route of having an American system.

The president of the EU is unelected. UNELECTED!

The President of the EU Commission is nominated by the EU Council and elected by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by voters.

And the 28 commissioners who make up the European Commission, are nominated by member countries and approved by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by voters.

I teach older teenagers. We have to teach them the difference between fact and opinion. If you base an argument on opinion with no evidence you will do badly in your GCSEs.

This is not difficult or complicated.

Leavers have an opinion based argument with no base in fact. No only is this not seen as a disadvantage it is a positive. You want to change the direction of the whole country on an argument that would get you a 1 or a 2 in GCSE. You are working below the expected level of a 16 year old.

@snapcrap 'reasons' imply a basis in fact. What have been put forward are opinions, opinions that have been easily disproved.

You then state : We didn't sign up for it, we signed up for a trade agreement, it's outrageous.

This has been clearly disproved several points earlier with quotes from the two Prime Ministers of the early 1970s.

Facts are an irrelevance to you aren't they?

Lidl Q yesterday. Blokes in front discussing Brexit, they A) seemed like Leave voters B) were saying how much they missed Thatcher and 'she would have sorted this out." So I guess they are still hoping for Mrs. T to return.

Well that's ruined my day. The thought of Zombie Thatcher. Thanks.

The president of the EU is unelected. UNELECTED!

Not directly but then neither is the UK prime minister. I don't have a vote in the top job. I vote for people who (if they get enough votes) get to vote amongst themselves as to who get to be top dog. Delegation. It's the way democracy works.

And I don't remember ever getting asked if I wanted Betty Windsor as my head of state.

This is something I’ve never understood. For all the moaning about the bureaucracy of the EU, Leavers never actually consider the fact that the UK is virtually no different.

Just look at how well ‘taking back control’ is working - those you’ve given ‘control’ to are treating it like a hot potato that they want nothing to do with.

@TheSandman: Betty Windsor or Mrs Saxe Coburg Gothe as I like to think of her.

Windowsareforcheaters Both remain and leave arguments are based on opinion not fact.Noone has a time machine to establish what the outcome of any course of action will be, any projection is an opinion!

@Dana28 Both remain and leave arguments are based on opinion not fact

Have you read the thread?

Leaver - people didn't know about closer union when they joined the EEC.

Remainers - this is not true here is the evidence. When we chose to remain in the EEC in 1975 we knew what we were doing.

One person using and opinion the other person using facts. Do you want more evidence?

I do not believe UK voters knew they would be voting for a seemingly unending procession of poor countries joining which we would have to subsidise

Leavers like dana clearly have to convince themselves that no one can possibly know what the future might bring in order to continue believing ‘it’ll all be fine’

They deliberately ignore anything which concludes Brexit is going to be detrimental, and that includes just about every study on the subject, including the governments own impact assessment.

You can predict, with relative certainty, what will happen if you pour petrol throughout your house and drop a match - this is no different.

@Dana28 you don't 'believe' that voters knew what they were voting for. That is your opinion.

However, I have produced quotes from the two Prime Minsters of the day where they make it clear it would be much more than just and economic trading area. There is a significant amount of literature form the time making this clear.

There is also anti EEC literature where some 'warned' about what would happen.

The facts are there, do a quick google. The information about closer union was presented to the British people in Parliament by the PMs of the day.

But you are under no obligation to 'believe' these facts you can 'believe' what you want. Objectively, however, you would be incorrect.

The president of the EU is unelected. UNELECTED!

The President of the EU Commission is nominated by the EU Council and elected by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by voters.

Although you have forgotten all the drama surrounding Jean-Claude Juncker's election in 2014;

"For the first time in the EU's history, the nomination was not consensual; the UK and Hungary were staunchly opposed to the candidate-and outvoted."

"A bad day for Europe", in the words of British Prime Minister David Cameron: in his view, the nomination equates with a sudden power grab by Europe's Parliament, while Juncker's "federalist" credentials now make EU reform less likely."

"This was the first time the presidency nomination process was decided by majority against the wishes of any member state–let alone a heavy hitter such as the UK."

Cameron outvoted 26-2 in unprecedented EU vote on Juncker

www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-summit-vote/cameron-outvoted-26-2-in-unprecedented-eu-vote-on-juncker-uk-idUSKBN0F21LL20140627

'You don't frighten me':Jean-Claude Juncker taunts David Cameron

"Mr Cameron was out-voted, after being betrayed by the German Chancellor and Mr Juncker was installed in the commission" ...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11211018/You-dont-frighten-me-Jean-Claude-Juncker-taunts-David-Cameron.html

@Clavinova I don't understand your point. The U.K. did not agree with the candidate selected and they were outvoted.

Outvoted in an election. As many leavers point out that is how democracy works. It wasn't a small majority of a few % points it was a clear majority for the other side.

It was a debate within a democratic structure.

The point made was that the EU is undemocratic. Losing a vote does not make it undemocratic.

Presumably Leavers think that Cameron should have got what he wanted by stamping his foot!

The facts are there, do a quick google.The information about closer union was presented to the British people in Parliament by the PMs of the day.

I have just done a quick google and I found this in the BBC archive from 2001;

Secrets of 1970 revealed

"Documents disclosed under the 30-Year Rule reveal that the most controversial European issue of today-monetary union-was already being discussed at the highest levels of government in 1970 as the UK sought entry to the club."

"British documents seen by the public for the first time have revealed how in 1970 the government" ... "dithered over what to tell the public over Europe."

"papers reveal that the government's thinking appeared to be to downplay sovereignty issues out of fear of losing public support."

"While the media concentrated on what would happen to the prices of daily goods in the new Common Market, papers reveal that officials and the Prime Minister himself were already considering whether or not their membership of the new club would lead to European monetary union."

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1095248.stm

UK Confidential Monday, 1 January, 2001

UK downplayed sovereignty in Euro talks

"At the negotiating table, they could hardly be avoided as Brussels had already devised what became known as the Werner Plan, a proposal for monetary union."

"According to the senior British officials who saw it, the plan "could imply the ultimate creation of a European federal state with a single currency."

"It will arouse strong feelings about sovereignty and provoke vigorous discussions."

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/uk_confidential/1094207.stm

It may have been downplayed but the quotes previously on this thread are from PMs of the day and one is recorded by Hansard.

If it was being downplayed it wasn't being done very well as it?

But whatever the economic arguments, the House will realise that, as I have repeatedly made clear, the Government's purpose derives, above all, from our recognition that Europe is now faced with the opportunity of a great move forward in political unity and that we can and indeed must play our full part in it

That is a quote from Harold Wilson's speech to the HoC on applying to enter the EEC.

The term 'political unity' used by the PM in the HoC. How is this hiding anything? If you weren't aware it's because you weren't listening.

@Clavinova also the points you raise are specifically about monetary union.

As far as I am aware we are not a member of a monetary union so down playing this was a reasonable option as it hasn't happened.

To be honest, arguing the ifs and buts of the last referendum are pointless now, let alone the one 40 odd years ago.

The question that needs answering now is what do you want to achieving by leaving the EU now that it’s clear we will never leave without a deal and any deal we do get will be worse than the one we have now.

You can dislike that all you like but it is fact and it is the bounds in which we leave if we are going to.

So, based on actually reality, what the Leaver goal now?

But this isn't about the rights and wrongs of Brexit anymore.

This is about the very soul of the nation and how we conduct our politics. Do we allow opinion based, faith style arguments to hold sway or do we fight on facts?

The extremists and their faith based beliefs are threatening evidenced based arguments. 'But I want it cos I want it' is being put forward as a reasonable suggestion, as a point of view that deserves respect.

Project Fear in 1975

"On 20 May 1975, midway through the UK’s last referendum on Europe, the Daily Mail published an article about how life would be if voters chose to leave the EEC"

No Coffee, Wine, Beans Or Bananas, Until Further Notice” read the headline.The country would become “Siege Britain”.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/05/daily-mail-backs-campaign-to-remain-in-europe-in-1975-eec-eu-referenfum

Do we allow opinion based, faith style arguments to hold sway or do we fight on facts?

The trouble is, that’s not a choice we can make.

To me the latter is a no brainier, but we can’t force people to do that, even though the former makes no sense whatsoever.

The only way I can see to resolve this is for Leavers to be challenged on how their opinions and aspirations can actually work in practice and hope that, when they finally understand that they can’t, we can get out of this mess.

Maybe mob rule has always been there, we just fooled ourselves for a while thinking it wasn't a force any more.

Local lady doored neighbour (on her bike). Neighbour broke collarbone. Neighbour wants ££ compensation "because she didn't ring to see how I was." Not about damage done or lost income. A decision all about hurt feelings.

Again and again. Emotions matter more than facts or process or consequences. Opinions matter more than evidence. Majoritarianism matters more than rule of law. Constantly & everywhere.

Correct me if I’m wrong there’s no rule that says we can’t keave without a deal

The law was changed to say TM had to ask for extension which she accepted. She only had to ask. If she declined the offered deal or if it was refused then it would have been no deal

Declined offered extension that should say

There’s been no rule saying we can’t have no deal