Can people/Remainers explain what they are tying to achieve with Revoke?

[EggAndButter]

I initially wanted to post on AIBU but I didn’t have the guts and thought it wouod just be moved anyway...

I’m getting tired of Brexit.
Tired of the lies and dreams of the Leave side.
But just as tired of the dreams and wishful thinking of the Remain side.

So I am asking Remainers on here

What do you expect to achieve with Revoke?

How are you planning to deal with the Leave side being left down?
How will you deal with the inevitable instability coming with Revoke? There will a lot of very angry People around.... people who will be feeling left down. People in the north who have always being feeling that the South and London never listens to them and that this is another proof they don’t. And being sure that you have the ‘right’ solution isn’t going to be enough.

I have the same questions for Leavers btw. It’s just that the answer seems to always be ‘that’s the will of the people. Just suck it up’ :(

As we are going deeper and deeper into this brexit mess, it’s clear that there is one way to go back to what the U.K. has. That ship has well and truly sailed.
It’s also clear that No Deal will be a nightmare.

So the only way out I can see is a deal. A deal that will worse for the U.K. than being in the EU. A deal that both sides ‘will just have to suck it up’.
A deal where no one will be truly happy because the other solutions (No Deal or Revoke) just aren’t possible. But the only way out until the U.K. can sort itself out, its political system that has more or less collapsed, its priorities in the middle of a climate crisis, social issues, poverty and economic downturn, its press. (Whilst crossing fingers that whilst it’s doing that, no one will use that opportunity to take power -Trump style for example)

Not feeling very positive about it all. But even less so when I see both sides just sticking to their mantra and refusing to accept that, basically, they have both lost the game.

It was about things like austerity, a broken housing market, a breaking health service, a lack of decently paid work dished out by moneyed politicians who seemed self serving and didn't listen

If this is the case, and it sounds like it could be, why on earth did anyone think that voting to give more power to Westminster would fix it?

Fair enough Lisbon, if you don't know something, you don't know it.
As I posted a long while back

I consider the result of June 2016 to be the product of 4 decades of failure from our representatives, that's why I want them gone! I consider those failures to have become much more serious in the last 2 decades or so, as EU integration has proceeded without explicit popular consent in the UK.

so lets call it 2 decades of EU progress without a direct popular mandate. Basically, for me, this means they ought to have asked everyone in 1992, the didn't and we are where we are now.

The decades of failure are on Westminster in large measure, failure to support industries, failure to invest in communities, failure to listen when people were telling our MPs that things were going wrong.

Failure to ensure that, as Tony Benn put it, the powers that were handed by the electorate to members of parliament were handed back again undiminished. This should have meant IMO no transfers of power away from Westminster to the EU without a direct mandate.

Lots of people on here view these transfers as a positive, view the EU as a positive influence on Britain, I don't, I'm sure many other Leave voters don't.

I voted to leave because I want my elected representatives to have more power, I then expect to be able to hold them to account for how they use it.

In the European elections this month, I can't even vote for a bloody candidate, I vote for a party. That is appalling IMO. There is no direct mandate given by me, the voter who whomever my representative is, none, nothing.

Fair enough and thank you for explaining.

I still fail to understand how years of Westminster getting things wrong leads us to a situation where the solution to that is to give Westminster even more power than it currently has, without trade deals and the input of the EU to mitigate those disastrous actions.

That's the part I'm struggling with.

What has the EU done to make Westminster fuck it up for so long?

Because they've given subsidies to industry and agriculture, and haven't caused austerity, a housing crisis and the credit crunch.

Genuinely asking.

why on earth did anyone think that voting to give more power to Westminster would fix it?

I think a lot of people assumed that Remain would win, because it's the status quo, and they didn't normally spend much energy thinking about the EU, but did want to give Cameron and Osborne a good kick in the teeth. Well, they did that, although both are still wealthy men and won't be depending on food banks any time soon, or living in insecure rented accommodation.

Peregrina that's what I feared would be the answer tbh.

What a mess.

In the European elections this month, I can't even vote for a bloody candidate, I vote for a party.

May I suggest that you move to N Ireland then, where they elect their MEPs via the STV system. Of course, you might then find that you develop an interest in honouring the GFA.

Part of the reason Westminster gets things wrong is that is has been prevented from acting in way it otherwise might have done by EU laws.

The EU, from my pov doesn't "mitigate" anything, it makes things worse not better.

Anything, literally anything that the EU have given us via subsidies and grants is moot because we have always been a contributor to the EU budget, i.e. we paid in more than we got back.

There is an argument that had Westminster kept that money it would have been spent differently, and maybe not on things that posters on here like, but that's not a good argument for saying the EU should just have it for ever more.

I "got the vapours" with DGR as you put it because what she posted was deeply, horribly xenophobic.

Part of the reason Westminster gets things wrong is that is has been prevented from acting in way it otherwise might have done by EU laws

Can you give examples?

Anything, literally anything that the EU have given us via subsidies and grants is moot because we have always been a contributor to the EU budget, i.e. we paid in more than we got back.

Again, can you show examples?

There is an argument that had Westminster kept that money it would have been spent differently, and maybe not on things that posters on here like, but that's not a good argument for saying the EU should just have it for ever more.

But we benefit from trade deals, being in the single market, didn't have to join the Euro, and enjoy free movement and less travel restrictions and also medication trade.

It really isn't as simple as if we don't pay the EU we'll all suddenly have more money. Without trade deals in place prices rise, import/export tax rises, medication shortages happen.

The benefits outweigh the cost.

I "got the vapours" with DGR as you put it because what she posted was deeply, horribly xenophobic.

I'm sorry but that just isn't true.

Firstly you misquoted DG several times, and misinterpreted what had been said.

But if you're going to post a slur such as that, expect to be called out.

Saying it was xenophobic is appalling. And an absolute lie.

Part of the reason Westminster gets things wrong is that is has been prevented from acting in way it otherwise might have done by EU laws.

Just about everything you have listed is within the remit of Westminster - the EU don't concern themselves with housing, health, or education that I know of. They do pass some employment laws, but nothing that the EU has done has forced our employers to use zero hours contracts - I believe that they are banned in Germany. As for our wonderful fishing rights - it was the Westminster Government which sold off our quotas, mostly to the Dutch. We have already had the discussion about how they could have supported Redcar steel works but chose to use the EU as an easy excuse for doing nothing for the north of England.

There was absolutely nothing stopping the Westminster Government from spending the £350 million a week on the NHS except that they chose not to. May very quickly found the magic money tree for a bung to the DUP, after wasting taxpayers money on an unnecessary election. And yes, there are the shipping contracts which have wasted money. We could all furnish examples. So I am at loss to know why you suddenly expect them to have a personality transplant and start considering the whole country.

I think if we do leave the EU then the change in employment law is going to come as a short (well long) sharp shock to people.

And don't even get me started on Scottish oil fields and fishing waters being used as bargaining chips by Westminster!

I "got the vapours" with DGR as you put it because what she posted was deeply, horribly xenophobic.
No. I still can't see anything 'xenophobic' about what he posted. What, in particular, is so offensive? The notion that England isn't perfect? Because I could give hundreds of examples where we could be seen as uncivilised (eg. chasing foxes with packs of dogs (despite there being a law that prevents this), turning a blind eye to people using food banks while the rich folk use ever more sophisticated loopholes to avoid paying their taxes, the 'rape clause' referred to by Rosetti, etc etc). There is nothing, repeat nothing, xenophobic about pointing out these shortcomings.

You know what I find deeply xenophobic?

Watching parliament live and realising that the only MPs who have to shout over chatter and constant jeering are Plaid Cymru and SNP MPs. Respect works both ways, but is very rarely afforded to MPs representating devolved countries.

Representing!

{Failure to ensure that, as Tony Benn put it, the powers that were handed by the electorate to members of parliament were handed back again undiminished. This should have meant IMO no transfers of power away from Westminster to the EU without a direct mandate. }
most of what I was going to say has already been said but it needs pointing out again that operating within the EU places restrictions AND benefits with regard to trade. If the UK is out of the EU the same thing will happen with any other country that the UK wants to trade with, the UK can't define both sides of trade deals and so many other regulatory situations. The UK will be someone else's poodle, but at least within the EU it is at the 'top table' helping write the rules rather than being a '51st State' or a far flung corner of China.

See the problem with these threads is that they circle. People repeatedly make similar arguments about how this or that feature of continued EU membership is a benefit, because that is their viewpoint.

Consider please that virtually all the things you identify as benefits of being in the EU I am either a) confident we can secure for ourselves or b) I don’t see them as a benefit, I don’t want what you are selling.

Oh, and thanks but I have not lied, what was posted was an anti English sentiment.

As opposed to the anti Scottish sentiment seen regularly in Parliament? As Lisbon mentioned above?

Oh and it is uncivilised of England to insist on the Rape Clause

anti English sentiment
Wot, like Shakespeare portrays them: thick and ugly?

"You know I say nothing to him, for he understands
not me, nor I him: he hath neither Latin, French,
nor Italian, and you will come into the court and
swear that I have a poor pennyworth in the English.
He is a proper man's picture, but, alas, who can
converse with a dumb-show? How oddly he is suited!
I think he bought his doublet in Italy, his round
hose in France, his bonnet in Germany and his
behavior every where"

whoops, I missed 'rude' too.
According to Shakespeare.

Oh it circles all right. I want to Leave because I want to Leave. Why do you want to Leav? I have told you why, because I want to Leave. I don't like what Westminster does, so I want to Leave the EU. ......

And on.

Not sure what your point is @woman19

Shakespeare; greatest English writer. Possibly one of the best writers in the world.
Act 1 Scene 2 Merchant of Venice. His comments on the English.

I don’t like what the EU does either, that’s why I want to leave it. I have explained this repeatedly.

I get asked questions, I try to supply answers from my point of view. Not really sure what more I can offer when even the minor changes I propose in response to questions put to me make posters on here have the proverbial kittens.