Pro-Leavers - please help

[CeciledeVolanges]

Good morning.
I am following a lot of conversations and events about the referendum and there are a lot of assertions about "what the referendum was about" and "why people voted" and "what people want."
I just wanted to ask, neutrally, if you believe that we should leave the EU what good things do you want to happen or believe will happen when we do?
I can't account for anyone else, but I have seen some really nasty referendum threads and I often get upset about it myself, so I want to say I will not attack or even argue with anyone, I'm just interested to hear the wishes and opinions of people who want positively to leave. It is such an emotive issue - not least to me - and maybe there are some views we haven't heard yet.
Thanks if you do answer! And thanks for reading.

P, no need, I'm confident you have - subtlety - informed them of the error of their ways and they will ever ever ever again, make a decision based on their own thinking. Because it is wrong. Who needs enemies, huh?

We had an interesting discussion - I didn't need to say very much, just sit and listen to them tell me how worried they were.

So your listening skills are selective? Only repentant leave voters can rely on the comfort of your friendship?

Only repentant leave voters can rely on the comfort of your friendship?

Where did she say that?

It's a noble but slightly flawed experiment that the OP has tried to execute here.

It would be really interesting to hear the full list of reasons for voting 'Leave'. Difficult to let them stand as reasons and not challenge them, though.

I think perhaps only one single poster has outlined a watertight argument for voting leave, however I believe those concerns (I share them) are outweighed by the benefits of staying in the EU (many which are too long winded and complex for the 'ordinary voter' to contemplate).

Referendums are perhaps the least effective way of making policy (settling an argument??) in a representative democracy.

My opinion, gleaned from the posting history.

My opinion, gleaned from the posting history.

Which aspects of her (am making the assumption it's her, sorry if incorrect) posting history have led to your opinion that she has "informed them of the error of their ways and they will ever ever ever again, make a decision based on their own thinking" and "Only repentant leave voters can rely on the comfort of your friendship"?

Various. But entitled to my opinion and under no requirement to justify to a third party.

But entitled to my opinion and under no requirement to justify to a third party

Ah, that old tune.

Various. But entitled to my opinion and under no requirement to justify to a third party.

I was going to give you a courteous reply, but I thought why bother, when someone can only make sly digs.

OP thank you for starting this thread - I loved the gentle non- threatening tone of your OP. There are many of us with very strong opinions on Brexit, so it isn't surprising it gets heated, but it's good to talk!

At the last few polls i have really struggled with a decision, and this one was no exception. That is because it was a too-simple question for a very complex issue.

Did I want us to continue with the eu as it is? No.
Did I think that the eu has a lot of advantages? Yes.
Do I want every non-briton thrown out? no.
Do i want hate-mongers not born here thrown out? Yes.
Do I want the eu to change and waste less? Yes.
Do I agree with the one-size-fits all approach? E.g power, carbon targets? No.
Do I think leaving the eu is a big risk? Yes?
Do I think that 350million or whatever would go into the nhs? No.

Will that risk now pay off and change the eu? I dont know.

And so on for a hundred other questions. But I had to tick one box.

So much should have been done differently with this referendum. I guess that cameron didnt bother because he never expected what happened.

Niamer thanks for your reply, and thanks again to everyone who came on to explain their reasoning.

Thanks for the thread op. It has worked better than some of the other threads on this subject!

I voted out for a number of reasons ( and gave thought we should be out for about 15 years- so didn't base my decision on what was on the buses).

For me it was about sovereignty and getting rid of the bureaucracy that is the EU. Having worked for the civil service a fair while, I have had to tell Ministers that we weren't allowed to do this or that policy and I just don't get why we would want to be tied to a way of doing things on numerous issues that don't suit the UK.

Free trade is a great idea, and if the option of going back to what we originally signed up to was available, then I imagine most people would have voted for that.

How do you feel about sovereign parliament not being given a vote on Breit or changes after it?

And how do you feel about every EU lawand rule being grandfathered in to UK law, so we'll still have to follow them once we do leave? (This is what the "great repeal bill" will do - it repeals nothing).

I voted remain, but if I were a leave voter I'd be questioning the logic right now.

Immigration: all current immigrants will be allowed to stay

Economy: already starting to tank, and we haven't left yet. Sterling crisis means we are all 17% poorer in just four months - and this will get worse. Less economic activity means reduced tax take, so less money for hospitals and schools. There is serious talk of companies and jobs moving overseas (my own workplace is almost certain to do this).

Sovereignty: taking back control so far means our own elected parliament is being sidelined by a government which wasn't elected.

The way I see it, Leave voters have so far been offered none of what they voted for, and little prospect that this will change. But at the same time every indication that all of us will be worse off for a long, long time.

anneelliott I understand the idea of regaining our sovereignty and getting rid of bureaucracy but I'm interested to know how you imagined it would actually happen.

I voted Remain because I didn't see the a benefit of leaving and that was in no small part to concepts like 'regaining sovereignty' being exactly that, a concept, nothing more than an abstract idea that can't actually happen in reality because we are too intertwined with the affairs of the EU whether we're part of it or not.

As mrsblackthorn said, we're going to enshrine EU law into our own initially then cherry pick what we fancy changing, which could well be pesky things like employment or environmental laws. Where's the benefit in that? It's actually potentially going to be really quite damaging.

what aspects of EU law do you dislike and how do you see it improving? Can you give us some examples of things you had to tell ministers they couldn't do because of EU law?

Bear I can only speak from my experience in Government which has shown the EU to be sclerotic and slow in often innocuous and ( what should be simple issues). Without that additional layer, decisions can and will be taken more easily and quickly by our own national institutions.

That was for me the main reason for my vote. Others had a different view and that's fine.

Of course not everything about the EU is terrible ( and those who voted remain didn't think the EU was perfect) but when I weighed it up, on balance I felt my vote was for leave.

Sorry, missed half your bottom post Bear.

I'll have a think about specific examples but I have to be careful as I'm still a civil servant.

I can certainly see once decisions are solely made here, that decisions and action can be taken more quickly, rather than waiting to raise it at the next relevant EU committee and potentially not getting agreement.

For me it's obvious that having 27 partners that need to agree takes longer than working by yourself and being free to decide what to do. That for me is sovereignity- nothing a problem, considering the issue and taking action in our own best interests.

AnneElliot - it's a little surprising that you can't already list the specific examples that informed the casting of your vote, rather than needing to think now.

There is some truth in the argument that the EU is a sclerotic organisation. How we hope to negotiate WTO terms with 161 other countries without schlerosis interests me - all large groupings tend to be bureaucratic.

"every EU lawand rule being grandfathered in to UK law" every EU law hasn't been grandfathered into EU law, though probably the UK Sovereign Parliament has chosen to implement more laws than other countries have.

It was reported yesterday that on a radio phone in, the caller was asked why he voted Leave. Because he wanted to get rid of EU laws. The presenter asked him which ones and the guy couldn't name a single one.

I'd like to know which EU laws pro-leavers would get rid of. And please don't say bananas.

My brother did come up with some obscure law to do with bus drivers and time rostering, which was initiated by the EU, but was one which the UK govt didn't oppose, so happily passed it. He then told me how they got round the law. Can't quote chapter and verse - it was all a bit convoluted.

So was it EU law, or UK law? Might it have happened anyway? It was to do with health and safety.

Anne I'm really interested if you do think of specific examples. Thanks!

anne, as peregrina said it is interesting you can't give any examples given that's what made you choose to vote the way you did.

This isn't aimed at you personally but this is exactly what is driving Remainers mad- how can you quote a reason but not even be able to give the vaguest of examples?

The way I see it, we'll still have to abide by many EU laws in order to maintain relations and trade with them.

I should say that my DB could quote chapter and verse, (he's like that, a bit of a lawyer), but I can't remember the details he gave. The interesting thing was, it didn't really stop anyone doing anything, apart from a slight fudge on the paperwork. He voted Remain BTW.