I voted for Brexit ‘I voted for Brexit and was told it wouldn’t affect expats – now I can’t live in my £13,000 Italian house’

[OhNoOhNo]

Struggling to work up any sympathy…

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/brexit-voted-wouldnt-affect-expats-cant-live-italian-house-2508493?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=paulchown%2Fmagazine%2FBrexit+Reality+

Common Market 2 represents pretty much the softest Brexit model.
It came close in the indicative votes.

Unfortunately, it received opposition from a lot of die-hard Remainers who thought it was a dilution of the big prize. Eg some very pro-EU Lib Dems. We weren't prepared to settle and ended up with the worst possible Brexit.

This was an opportunity missed. The government had no majority in the HoC. We were in uncharted waters.

https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/667

Re-reading my earlier comment, I realise why you didn't like the post. It referred to our side screwing up. But screwing up is what we did. I'm not the only Remainer to make that observation.

The article below from a Green MEP weren't unusual of the reaction from some Remainers to anything less than full membership.

https://greenworld.org.uk/article/common-market-20-worst-all-worlds

Except I honestly think we would have had dangerous levels of civil unrest if anything other that the hardest possible brexit had been delivered. The right wing press would have been up in arms at anything less, Farage himself has said he would have worn fatigues and taken up arms against parliament.
Brexit could have been stopped, completely legitimately and democratically, if significant numbers of Leave voters had changed their minds before its enactment. They didn't and they were in no mood to compromise.

The other problem with Common Market 2.0 is that the other members of EFTA would have had to agree to the UK joining, and they were very unlikely to do that.

I don't think so.

Leave (Farage especially) pushed "Norway" a lot. It was only during the post-referendum period when Brexit was being defined but our side chose not to take part in the discussion. We didn't push EFTA/Norway/Common Market 2 because we wanted the Big Prize. We let the other side define Brexit so we got a hard Brexit.

Personally, I could have lived with an EFTA-like relationship and FoM (either limited or full). It would also have provided a far easier springboard back to the EU in the future should the UK/EU circumstances and support allow.

We screwed up in the post-referendum fight, just like we screwed up in the referendum campaign. We didn't have a great set of cards (eg Corbyn in charge of Labour) but we played the cards we did have very badly.

We didn't need to join EFTA. An EFTA-like arrangement could have been worked out. There were many options.

As for the other EFTA members preventing our joining, this is an oft-repeated myth based on a comment from a Norwegian minister. The Norwegian Prime Minister said the opposite.

"Asked whether Norway would support Britain coming back to EFTA, Solberg told Reuters in an interview: “If that is what they really want, we will find solutions in the future."

This type of myth is one reason why the idea was strangled at birth. The big reason was that it wasn't EU membership. We gambled and lost heavily.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-norway-idUKKCN1NX16V

I don't think the leave side would ever have accepted a compromise that included FoM. Ending that was the main goal.

There are models of FoM that are more restrictive compared to what we had. For example, EFTA has a break mechanism.

Dan Hannan, a very prominent Leaver, was in favour of parking in EFTA after Brexit while things were being worked out.

None of this got oxygen because of the combined team of the hard Brexiters and uber-Remainers.

@BritinEU
The focus was on keeping the Tory party together, these were indicative votes and not necessarily what would be delivered by a right wing, hard Brexit Govt, the DUP would have withdrawn support, vote of confidence, GE & Boris back in.....

Do you really think the Tories would have negotiated an EFTA style agreement?

No way, it would have torn the party in half.

I think this is just pie in the sky thinking plus its done, pointless banging on & on about what if's...

Should we want a better relationship with the EU, then we need a change of party in Government, probably a Lab/LD coalition would get the quickest results on that front.

Many Brexitiers said many different things to win over people who had reservations about voting to Leave.

Personally, i think EFTA is an excellent way forward but i doubt very much whether Hannan genuinely wanted it, unless of course he didn't really know what it meant? as he also said plenty on getting rid of the ECJ, something EFTA membership would mean we kept.

So you can hear yourself and reflect on your responses.

The Tories didn't even have a majority. An election was several months away that was basically a Brexit election. Pity that Labour went in with a wishy-washy in/out Magic Grandpa deal.

After the referendum, we didn't have a great hand of cards but we played them very poorly.

It's comforting but limiting to see mistakes made only by those we oppose.

No they didn't so they threw the DUP £1bn and bought their votes, effectively getting a majority.

imho there was no hand to play, May had the votes to defeat any compromise plan put fwd & in case she needed them, there were approx 20 Lab rebels who would back her.

Brexitiers didn't make any mistakes, they got exactly what they wanted.

Your analysis is of course balanced and reflects what happened to reality.

Soft Brexit was a more realistic reflection of the populations wishes. Either one of the hardline sides could have enabled it by folding, but chose not to and therefore we are where we are.

Far easier of course to blame hardliners, "The Tories", effectively anyone else for the outcome rather than look at the reality of the options that were on offer and how they could have been enabled.

If you go for the all out win, it seems pretty churlish to complain when you lose.

Perhaps someone should ask Keir Starmer about joining EFTA, in case the polls are correct and Labour wins the next GE.

So far all we have is this
https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-sets-out-labours-5-point-plan-to-make-brexit-work-2/

Far easier of course to blame hardliners, "The Tories", effectively anyone else for the outcome rather than look at the reality of the options that were on offer and how they could have been enabled

Serious re writing of history here.

what realistic options? indicative non binding votes...

a hard brexit Government which somehow would be expected to deliver a soft brexit ..... pls explain how that would happen? esp with a very pro brexit Tory supporting press....

The indicative votes were performed in order to try and see what support there was for a path forward. If one vote had demonstrated clear support, then it would have moved to a main vote and would have presumably passed. None of them did.

May's government was not a "hard Brexit government". She supported remain I believe in the vote and tried to come up with a range of options for MPs that both preserved the result of the vote (to leave) while acknowledging that a significant proportion of people voted remain - ie a softer Brexit best reflected a reasonable compromise of the nations wishes under the circumstances.

The hardline Brexiters weren't really interested in the compromise, and to be fair why would they be ? They had just won the vote. Remainers had the opportunity to vote for the compromise, but decided to scupper it in the hope that they would manage to stop Brexit entirely. Which history shows did not work out well for them.

The same Leave side that regularly trumpeted the Norway model ?

They might have squealed a bit but if the numbers were there for a Norway-like arrangement they would have had to have accepted it, especially if it could be sold as a provisional solution, as Leavers Dan Hannan and Nigel Farage had said.

Remain ended up accepting pretty much the hardest of all possible Brexits. If the numbers aren't there, you end up accepting what is given.

This is all counter-factual. None of us know for certain what would have happened had people acted differently. We do, however, know that Remain left the pitch when the game started about the post-Brexit settlement.

I see! I have heard myself and reflected on my responses. Your formulation of me was incorrect and the tone and intent wasn't person centred.

Many Brexitiers said many different things to win over people who had reservations about voting to Leave.

Let's not mince words. Lied plain and simple.

And not just a little white lie. These were whoppers. And it's the continued head-in-the-sand (or -up-the-arse) attitude from Leavers that is now the source of their plight.

However, as we know, the problem is if they do admit the truth - that they and the country we lied to - then it kind of places some sort of expectation on them to do something about it. And continued observations of people who claim to voted leave is that they are the least likely to do anything they don't need to.

Yes. We don't have "leavers" anymore. We have "people who claim to have voted leave". A subtle distinction that acknowledges even my cynical suspicion that nobody on Gods Green Earth could be that fucking stupid as to still be singing the praises of Brexit unironically.

This isn't your therapy. This is an AIBU thread about a thick-as-fuck Leaver who's being inconvenienced by the vote for Brexit.

Wow! You sounds delightful!

Why thank you, I am delightful.

That blokes vote cost me, many like me and many not like me our jobs. His vote damaged my country. But I do not seek revenge, I merely relish the schadenfreude that his vote and his stupidity has had real life implications for him too.

Not sure what else you can say to this bloke complaining that he got exactly what he voted for.

He voted for Brexshit, he has got Brexshit. The stupid, ignorant pillock should be delighted.

If Daily Mail sad faces were worth anything, Brexiteers would be minted.