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.

I was asked what changes I would want to see, I am answering.

The first change I would want to see is that the current "establishment" in terms of our elected representatives being removed.

I have, over several years, reached the conclusion that Leaving the EU is about the only thing I’ve ever politically really wanted to happen.

Ok, so you really want to leave. And this is why:

I have reached the conclusion that for as long as we an EU member state, changing our government domestically makes little difference to our politics.

Because - um - whoever we vote for the situation stays the same, Thatcher, Blair, Heath, Major, all the same policies, etc?

The same kind of people are in charge, delivering the same kind of outcomes.

And they all have the same policies - and all do the same thing domestically because, um, because of the EU? You think it's the EU that rules this country - and you have decided that once we leave the EU everything will change.

I don't know what we can do about people having such a bizarre set of beliefs.
Nothing much really.

No they don't have the same policies, they do however deliver largely the same outcomes in the long run.

This is in large measure because the EU radically constrains what member states government's can do. Things I would want to see, simply cannot be done irrespective of which colour of government is in office because EU rules and laws prevent us doing them.

I don't know what we can do about people having such a bizarre set of beliefs. Nothing much really.

At the end of the day, there's a reason some voters get ignored ...

I have reached the conclusion that for as long as we an EU member state, changing our government domestically makes little difference to our politics.

What do you mean here?

What difference did you want/expect to see to 'our politics'?

Why couldn't our Govt domestically carry them out?

What is it specifically that being a member of the EU meant that our Govt could not carry those politics - whatever they were - out? Can you give some examples, please?

LouiseCollins28
You say that you are widely read but then come up with totally batshit reasons to leave. Domestic policy has always been entirely in the hands of Westminster so all failings over the last, well, forever are entirely down to them. You are now proposing that essentially the same wazzocks in Westminster are going to magically come up with radical plans to 'improve' the UK by being isolationist and launching into a whole new world of uncertainty when everyone else is forming stronger relationships with neighbours.

{The first change I would want to see is that the current "establishment" in terms of our elected representatives being removed.}

And replaced by what/who? And what makes you think that anyone else would be better and given the good chance that the UK will be fatally crippled by it's launch into the unknown, what 'materials' are they supposed to work with?

I really, really don't want to get into the "examples" game but to give just a few.

Unable to support Redcar steel works because of EU state aid rules
Unable to deny prisoners the right to vote when it's no business of the EU whether they have it or not.
Persistent problems in deporting foreign criminals. IMO this should be virtually instant upon the completion of their sentence.

This is in large measure because the EU radically constrains what member states government's can do. Things I would want to see, simply cannot be done irrespective of which colour of government is in office because EU rules and laws prevent us doing them.

So what then ? What EU rules and laws are stopping something you'd like to see the UK do ? There must be a single example, surely ? Something specific. Something real. And moreover something that has been tried but had to be stopped because of "EU rules and laws", not something that was never started because when you bother to research it, it turns out it was simply the UK making an excuse ....

Or do you just feel the EU is stopping the UK doing ?

I'll accept a Leave that doesn't mess with GFA. I'm frankly bored of all the other arguments. If we can't do it without messing with GFA, then we stay in but take genuine action to tackle the stupid shit that got us here in the first place.

1tis, sorry I may be wrong here but the question I'm answering is what do I want to happen if we don't Leave. i.e. post revoke. In such circs we wouldn't be launching into the unknown IMO, we'd still be in the EU, but we would require new political representatives, wholesale.

Given 3 examples above, thanks

@Louisecollins - interesting views on how UK local politics is affected by EU. Perhaps it is easier to give examples? UK politics is v London centric - a large proportion of gdp is from there. I guess I can see the EU giving grants to underfunded areas like parts of wales. But can’t really see how they disadvantage UK.

I don’t love the EU, but in general they have some good safety legislation and workers rights and economically it makes sense.

If HS2 was found to be too expensive would you think we should build it first as it was part of govt policy and they were voted in on that?

HS2 is necessary for the functioning of an advanced economy. The problem with it, for me, is they are starting building at the wrong end! Connect the north first, then do London.

Every MP in the Commons from 2015 onwards loses their seat at the dissolution of Parliament and every last one of them is debarred permanently from seeking any public office in the UK.

No, but I think that it would be a good idea to debar people from more than two consecutive terms of office. So you wouldn't have places who have had the same MP for 40 odd years. After a break of at least one Parliament they could then stand again. A lot of organisations and societies already have rules like this for Office holders, and I feel it's a good rule - it stops the leadership getting stale and cliquey and enables fresh blood to come in.

Disagree, experience in office is a good thing.

Sadly those who have it would, in the circumstances of a "post revoke" scenario, have used it to screw Leave voters. This is the circumstance I am trying to respond to. Those representatives need to be removed, permanently IMO.

@LouiseCollins28 , the current make up of Parliament was voted for By The People. Maintaining the use of FPTP was a recent decision made By The People. If you don't want a second referendum, why is it ok to overturn The Will of The People on stuff you don't like.

I am trying to respond to a "post revoke" scenario posed by frumpety.

I am saying that in a "post revoke" scenario, one of the things that might help to alleviate the feeling of my being "let down" by our representatives would be me knowing that those people would lose their roles and be permanently prevented from seeking new ones.

Or could it be that you don't think The People knew what they were voting for? Sounds a bit Remainer-y to me...

*It is disenheartening to see exactly the same process that we had during the referendum campaign happening again.

Basically, each side fighting their corner and wanting to win with no plan at all about what will happen afterwards*

I disagree OP. There is a clear plan to revoking. Revoking means we stay as we are. We can then tackle individual issues the UK has with EU policies when they come up

I have a clear vision is what being in the EU means because I have experienced it all my life. Everything from our working conditions to how food is labelled has evolved as part of being in the EU. We are prepared for it and know what it means.

If people are concerned about the future evolution of the EU then they should bother their arses to learn about how it works, vote in EU elections and lobby their MEPs to properly represent them.

Replaced by an entirely new Parliament composed of new representatives, btw. Not sure who asked that but that's my suggestion.

By the sound of it though, it's only those MPs who have screwed up your vision of Brexit that you want to see replaced. Or would you also be happy to see the back of Johnson, Davis, Fox, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Leasdom, Vey and a few others of the ardent Leavers?

@Perigrina
I wrote "replaced by an entirely new parliament", i.e. everyone goes.
thanks.

And you don't see the democratic problem with banning people who have committed no criminal offence from standing @LouiseCollins28 ? Doesn't smell a bit "Year Zero" to you?

Sorry @louise - just seen your examples! Thanks!

Do you think the EU state funding rules are a govt excuse to not support red car?

www.northeastlabour.eu/confirmation-uk-government-could-have-saved-steelworks

Personally I would prefer EU as just a trading bloc, but as they have the additional rules etc, I think we are better off in than out. I’m not convinced if there is less money to go around, westminister will spend more on non-London areas... workers right would also be diminished on leaving EU.

Well I'm not suggesting they'd like it. I do see a problem with it, many problems I'm sure. Nonetheless, I was asked, "How do we deal with those who feel let down by the political establishment if we do not leave?"

The removal from elected office at the dissolution of Parliament of that current establishment is part of my answer.