'Brexit means Brexit' - a political statement devoid of meaning

[xmasadsboohiss]

I'm not here to rehash the rights and wrongs of the Brexit vote - I was all for remaining but that's by the by. But TM's incessant repetition of 'Brexit means Brexit' is surely an insult to everyone's intelligence. No one knows what Brexit means that's the whole fecking point! I understand that she's trying to say there will be no second referendum (short sighted anyway precisely because no one knows what the negotiations will throw up) but Nigel Farage's idea of Brexit is I'm sure different from say a more moderate Tory's (?). You may as well try nailing jelly to the wall as define what it really means at this stage.

Or even human life

My view is that no one is going to get what they want. Some form of Brexit is inevitable (and even if we never actually end up leaving the EU the truth is that all sorts of demons have now unfortunately been unleashed.....). In terms of what "Brexit" should be, well there are many possible answers and every Brexiter will have a different view. The likelihood is many Leave voters will be disappointed in various ways - no one will be a "winner" in this in the end (except perhaps other EU countries who will benefit from likely - and desirable - reform......reform we were desperate for but will never feel the benefit of, having been the first to "blink" in the EU staring competition.........).

So, what will we have achieved when all the dust eventually settles? I really don't know. The BEST we can hope for is something approximating what we already had. Economically speaking this should (eventually) be possible. Socially and politically I fear we are in dangerous and unpredictable territory and I really do fear for all our futures.

Corcory, your 11/09 post is a perfect example of why I found it so difficult to decide which way to vote – the GAP arrangements only favour big companies (in France also) but I'm not certain anything will change once we take control. Not sure about allocations to farmers but I do know fish allocations are decided by the UK.

I voted Remain because I knew the £350million a week was wrong and therefore did not trust the Leave politicians to deliver their promises.

People voted Leave believing any savings the UK made by not paying into the EU would only be for the NHS and none would go to Cornwall, Wales, the North East, Scientific Research and so on. I can't get my head round why those same Leavers expect to get money from the UK.

I see so many letters in various papers, posts on Mumsnet and other articles stating Remainers should accept the result and get behind the country. I've accepted the result but someone please tell what there is to get behind? Before the Referendum, Leave promised us X. Now we're being promised Y, though we don't know what that is.

Surely no-one can expect me to believe the Y promises after being told X promises will never be delivered.

Petronius - It is interesting to see how people made up there as to how the voted. I would however question your assumption that people voted leave believing that no money would go to the regions, scientific research etc.
It's a pity you didn't look into the £350m thing a bit more as it was very easy to see that it was the gross figure that we have to earmark for the EU every week and that rebates and subsidies are taken off it. I also don't quite understand you saying there were 'promises' made by the leave team. They are not the ones that are going to be negotiating our exit from the EU and none of us know what Y is so I'm not sure what you think we are being promised now.

Corcory I suggest you take a look at photos of official Vote Leave campaign events. Like the bus - or this one.

It is disingenuous to say people 'should have looked into the £350m thing'. The posters on the buses, the leaflets through the letterboxes, the posters used at campaign events pushed that figure again and again. IN BIG WHITE LETTERS ON A BRIGHTLY-COLOURED BACKGROUND. The leave campaign knew perfectly well they was being deceitful, not only about the NHS, but also about the hordes of Turks amongst other things.
They used that figure knowingly and cynically. The Advertising Standards Authority would seriously challenge any company using outright lies to promote their product. Unfortunately, their remit doesn't cover political campaigns, so I imagine this is very much the shape of things to come.

Just look at Gisela Stuart here.

They are not the ones that are going to be negotiating our exit from the EU

Gove and Johnson both expected to continue/gain high office in Government, so they were in a position to know that they might have been expected to make good on their promises.

Johnson is one of the 'Three Brexiteers', so he is partly responsible for the Negotiations.

Granted that neither expected to win, it was just a game for Johnson, at least.

Now, now, Kaija. That was just an example

Corcory, your post doesn't make sense to me.

It's a pity you didn't look into the £350m thing a bit more ...

I did which is why I wrote,

I knew the £350million a week was wrong ...

And £350million was not the gross figure, because the rebate was taken off at source and was never sent. UK's 'bill' last year was about £248million (gross) and after grants etc., the total cost to the UK was £136million approx., (net).

The assumption I made was based partly on logic – if we left the EU then we wouldn't get any grants from the EU, that's obvious. Leave said, in effect, the money we save by leaving will go to the NHS. It follows there would be nothing in the pot to give to the Farmers, etc. The assumption was based partly on people I've spoken with, such as one of our grandsons about an hour ago. He voted Leave because he believed the £350million a week would go to the NHS and no one else.

As for your other points, Patty, twofingers, Kaija and Peregina have covered them succinctly.