If we just cancelled Brexit....

[GraceGrape]

...do you think there would really be that much fuss?

I posted on the id card thread that it would be much less hassle if we could just cancel Brexit. It got me wishful thinking that this could actually be possible!

Even the most ardent leavers are starting to downplay its likelihood of success. Key figures like Gisela Stuart have admitted it's all been handled disastrously. The economy is starting to look a bit shit before we've even left. According to the pro- leave camp, we all apparently knew there would be a recession but it would still be "worth it" if you're independently wealthy like Garage, IDS or Bojo maybe.

Anyway, I think it would be typically British if we just harrumphed a bit and said "Well, maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all. The referendum was only advisory y'know."

As a nation, we don't tend to like big changes so I think a lot of people would be secretly relieved. There might be a bit of grumbling, and maybe Farage would leave the country in disgust as an added bonus. We could then sweep it under the carpet and pretend it never happened, as the Brits tend to do with some of the more unsavoury parts of our history anyway. It would also save us the humiliation of seeing David Davis try to do any more negotiating.

It's interesting actually, because on the EU threads, whenever anyone mentions good beneficial EU directives, there is an outcry from Leave voters that 'we' would have done that anyway, or did do it first, or will continue to do it. Eg. workers rights, environmental directives, clean beaches, rivers air etc.

Yet the EU imposes all these mythical laws on us, apparently - yet nobody can ever tell me specifically what they are.

We belong to the single market - half our current trade is through the single at present - and we're lose it. That is madness - and nobody can tell me why it's so bloody important that we leave the EU - except talk of vague wavy-handed 'oh, we want to make our own rules.' Madness.

I certainly don't think we would have bothered with clean beaches - we never used to.
It is possible that we could have led the way on some environmental acts - I believe our clean air acts of the 1950s are an example.

However, what we did in the 1950s and what we would do now, are not necessarily the same. In the 1950s there was a commitment to a mixed economy, a recognition that the state or local authority did some things better and a readiness to implement measures. Instead of the post Thatcherite 'public sector bad, private sector' good mantra, or silly rules like getting rid of three regulations for each new one introduced, under the dogma of 'getting rid of red tape', whereas the sensible approach would have been 'what does this rule do?'

I am more concerned about us being able to determine our own future and respond flexibly to events in the world.

But this is just a meaningless soundbite. Tell me what it means in any terms! It's "take back control" in a different outfit. "Word Salad" is such an apt name.

Completely relevant to international relations - being able to take our own decisions without having to agree with 27 other countries first. But you don't agree, so it's just a soundbite.

I would argue that the single most significant 'international relations' decision the UK has taken in the last 20 years was to join the coalition forces and invade Iraq. It was costly, in terms of death and injury to our armed forces, in terms of the cost to this country's finances, and in terms of our national security. We didn't wait for 27 other countries to agree with us then. We didn't need to. We were free to make that (imo disastrous) decision all by ourselves. So the idea that we need Brexit in order to be able to determine our own future and respond flexibly to events in the world is not just a meaningless soundbite, it's a dangerously inaccurate one.

Oh, for heavens sake. There are clearly some decisions the UK can take by itself whilst a member of the EU. And there are other decisions which the UK can currently not take unilaterally which once we have left the EU, it will be able to. I would have thought it was obvious that I am aware EU law does not cover every single aspect of our lives and was referring to areas where membership of the EU affects us.

What are they Cross - nobody can ever tell me?

There are clearly some decisions the UK can take by itself whilst a member of the EU.

So you also agree that to be able to determine our own future and respond flexibly to events in the world is just a meaningless soundbite then. Good - glad that's cleared up.

I'm a bit surprised you are not aware that m'ship of the EU means that the UK has to follow EU immigration law/policy and is subject to the ECJ Shoes

Owls No, it is not and I disagree with you. But you are obvs interested in scoring points not having a discussion so, go on, put one on your score card if it makes you feel happier.

I realise this will fall flat as far as CrossWord is concerned, but the FOM rules aren't as 'open' as certain people would have you believe. It's just that the UK borders/authorities/govt choose not to police it. For example, we have the right to send people from the EU who can't support themselves home after 3 months - we just don't exercise that right.

What don't you like about the ECJ? Despite the hoo-ha thrown about in the tabloids, they seem to make sensible decisions, and frequently throw decisions back to UK judges. As in this case: Abu Hamza's DIL:

www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/13/uk-can-decide-whether-to-deport-abu-hamza-relative-eu-court-says

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3788642/European-court-tells-UK-T-deport-hate-preacher-Abu-Hamza-s-daughter-law-British-child.html

The stuff about the criminal being allowed to stay because of his cat was an outright lie.

Are those things really worth jeopardising HALF our trade, and our economy over?

But anyone would think that the UK had no part in making EU laws. There are very few the UK voted against, and some EU laws were promoted by the UK.

We won't have if we leave - but in order to trade with them we will have to abide by their laws. Such EU laws which are a reflection of International Law will have to be complied with. I would suspect that we find there is very little we can do on our own.

OK, explain to me why you feel it is not meaningless. To me it is a sweeping and inaccurate generalisation designed to encourage the public to feel that the UK has no control over its own decisions. But the UK already has considerable control over those decisions and leaving the EU is not going to make the remaining lack of control magically disappear. We will still largely need to comply with EU law if we wish to trade with them, still be subject to international law, and will likely have to comply with restrictions imposed by other nations if we wish to trade with them, without the negotiating power of the EU to temper them. Yes, we may no longer be subject to some of the limitations imposed by the EU (damn those pesky employment rights) but we will simply swap them for others. Therefore, to my mind, it is a 'meaningless soundbite'.

The UK genuinely has a voice in the EU, and power of veto. We had the best fucking deal ever - we said no to the Euro, we said no to Schengen, FOM works both ways and we can police it if we want - and we get free trade with 27 other countries - that currently accounts for at least half our trade, at least a third of our food imports and a huge chunk of our economy due to the city passport.

London is described as the economic capital of the world - that will be gone. People may think 'oh, but I don't work in London finance, therefore it won't affect me' - but in the words of Bill Clinton, 'it's the economy, stupid'.

Everything shoes just said

Shoes and Owl have managed to come back before I could, but said exactly what I would have done.

Sad thing is, if knowledgeable posters here can articulate the potential appalling vista, why does the Government not see it also?

Sounds to me like a battering ram no matter what, it has to be done, or we shall lose face or something.

I don't think we will just cancel it, although that would be a dream come true for me.
I think it will end up so twisted and complicated that it won't resemble anything like what Leave voters originally thought they were voting for.
The obvious advantages to leaving are looking less obvious by the day, and I think, deep down, most people would rather see the back of the whole idea, even if they won't admit it.
It's been 53 weeks since the referendum - you would think that by now, SOMEONE would have come up with one good reason for it.
One guaranteed, bonafide reason why Britain is better off out of the EU.
But no, still waiting.....

One guaranteed, bonafide reason why Britain is better off out of the EU.

Or in the same way that Cameron couldn't come out to wholly support the benefits of the EU, because to do so would lead to an admission that many of the UK's problems were to do with his policies, so the bonafide reason is that many wealthy will become even wealthier, but May, Johnson, Fox, Davis, Hunt etc. etc. aren't going to admit that.

Party politics before country. And it has led to this.

One guaranteed, bonafide reason why Britain is better off out of the EU.

I fear, ultimately, it will come down to some variant of "foreigners". Foreigners here, or foreigners there. Just foreigners.

I think in the long run though, those who voted out because of "foreigners" will not be very happy when the EU foreigners are replaced by lots of non-EU ( and maybe, gasp, non-white) foreigners.

Quite so Grace. White probably Christian, replaced by black and brown and probably Muslim. Well, it will be what they voted for. As far as the NHS concerned, that is almost certainly the only solution, and was the one the country relied on until our entry into the EEC.

www.politico.eu/article/uk-economy-officially-eus-worst-performer/
Just leave this here....

Meanwhile David Davis is preparing to shift the blame elsewhere:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40461496

The Euratom decision does seem ridiculous though. I seriously doubt that 99% of Referendum voters had heard of it so was is it felt necessary to pull out?

Euratom is a completely separate treaty, so no reason to pull out as far as I can see. Furthermore, there was no consultation about it, just thrown into A50 as an afterthought. It seems similar to the way May confuses the ECHR and ECJ all the time. Euro in the title, therefore must be got rid of.

I see the link says to stop movement of scientists. Pretty stupid - they go to and fro all the time. The end result is that they will destroy the nuclear industry in this country. But, if they manage to cancel that part, instead of admitting it was a mistake to put it in, it will be hailed as a great concession.