Brexit mega thread : part 9 : Winter is Coming

[Chevyimpala67]

Part 10 of our long running thread.

Not sure what to say, really, other than it is worse than I feared.

Strap in, folks. It's gonna be a rough ride...

If businesses only reviewed their projects that infrequently bankruptcies would run at a very high rate. Even the best ideas have unforseen problems that you would want to mitigate and if something has gone to he'll in a handcart you would be an idiot to try and see it through without any changes.

The same people who wanted the other outcome last time, agitating to reverse course immediately just because they didn't get what they wanted and somehow they are the people who's decision should count. Where else would that be acceptable?

But that is pretty much what has happened. The vote to stay in the EEC as it then was was positively endorsed with a higher % of the vote that the 2016 vote. It didn't stop people agitating to Leave, and once they had secured the Brexit vote, theirs were the only opinions which mattered.

We could for example still be part of the Horizon Programme, we could still be allowing our musicians to travel freely to the EU, but instead the Brexit extremist hate anything to do with the EU, so happily cut off everyone's noses out of fanatical dogma.

Of course decisions made by bodies we were a part of were reviewed, that's what institutions and governments do. The decision to join/remain part of that set of institutions was not revisted for 41 years though, despite repeated promises towards the end of that timespan that it would be.

The decision to join/remain part of that set of institutions was not revisted for 41 years though, despite repeated promises towards the end of that timespan that it would be.

And because it took 41 years last time, we must now wait another 41 years, yes? Even if that means flushing the UK economy down the drain, increased brain drain, poverty for the majority of people, unprecedented levels of government corruption - but we have to wait and not try to make things better?

Brexiter logic.

Guess they hope to have finally found a benefit by then

I don't accept that the portrait of the likely outcome of waiting is as you describe but don't see why the wait is unreasonable either.

Either both waits are reasonanble or neither are, so which is it? People on here just want to get back to the outcome they all think we should have had the last time 🙁and disregard anyone who disagrees.

@LouiseCollins28 as usual you are doing your zero sum thinking. Because we waited 41 years last time, we must now wait 41 years again. No review must be allowed before then, even if things get very much worse. I don't even know why I'm bothering to engage with you. Brexit is a dogma to you.

But just because I'm curious: how bad does it have to get before you will accept a term of less than 41 years? What is the minimum review term you would accept?

That's a consquence of our decision (the non membership of Horizon bit I mean) Not a guarateed one I accept but it is one.

People are allowed to choose outcomes you don't personally like, I should know those same people were doing it to me for 40+ years. Funny to see that, the second I finally get an outcome I do want, everyone else starts agitating to reverse course straight away.

The minimum term I should accept is 41 years since that's exactly equivalent.

The minumum term I would accept for a reivew is 30 years from implementation so that's January 2050.In accepting that I'm being generous to the tune of 6/11 years depending on how you slice it.

"Good" or "bad" simply doesn't come into it for me not remotely relevant and not a factor I'd consider, people's decisions matter and the June 2016 decision is the right one. There is no level of "bad" that I could personally experience that would cause me to accept that my decision of June 2016 was incorrect, try me, paint the most negative scenario you wish and I'll say exactly the same.

One addition. there actually is a limit I think it's sesible to apply but it's longer term and should apply to all sorts of similar decisions. If everyone who cast a vote resulting in a particular outcome is dead then that decision (whatever it is/was) should be reviewed and renewed if it hasn't already been. For Brexit you're looking at everyone who was 18 in 2016 being dead so that's born 1998, so perhaps 2098 ish.

@LouiseCollins28 yep, total irrational Brexit cultist. Let's hope that the next GE ends in a Tory wipeout so we can at least have a more pragmatic relationship with the EU and stop wiping out our economy and our environment. I don't want my kids to live in the wasteland you would apparently be happy with.

How am I irrational? I want an outcome, the outcome gets delivered. I'd like to keep what I wanted in the first place.

How's that different from any one elses pro EU and/or pro Rejoin position?

💯

What you want is adversity, pollution and corruption. It's already happening. You can't see it because you have that flag wrapped so tightly around your head that you're blind.

That's not what I want. Those are things you think will result from Brexit that* *I don't agree with.

Not that you should need to care but no one on here has asked me what I want I don't think lol.

For anyone to get the outcome they want frequent reviews are necessary to ensure things are not going off course. Number 1 rule of project management.

That's a consquence of our decision (the non membership of Horizon bit I mean) Not a guarateed one I accept but it is one.

It isn't actually. Tell me which of these are EU members.

1. Albania
2. Armenia
3. Bosnia and Herzegovina
4. Faroe Islands
5. Georgia
6. Iceland
7. Israel
8. Kosovo4
9. Moldova

10. Montenegro 11. North Macedonia 12.Norway 13.Serbia 14.Tunisia 15.Turkey

It's an easy question - none. What they are are countries with or seeking associate membership. That would have been available to the UK but for the words hated by the Brexit screamers of EU and ECJ. So they will happily destroy our once well respected scientific research base.

@LouiseCollins28 you are happy for an existing law that came via the EU, and is acknowledged by all to work well, to be scrapped, only to be replaced with a law that does exactly the same thing but has a Union flag on it. That's irrationality right there.

This was the outcome you wanted?

Our country on its knees?

Irrational is one word for people like that.

There are others.

Nope, that is simply untrue, we have GE's every 5 years and no anti EU party ever got an MP elected.

Even in by elections no UKIP MP was elected.

So the public have had many opportunities to make their feelings known on the EU.

In regard to your earlier point, yes, if the circumstances change, then i would expect any Govt to govern for the benefit of the UK and screw anyone who thinks differently and that would include me and other remainers if Brexit had proven to be a success... but by any metric brexit has been a disaster... jeez even inflation isn't falling in the UK like it is in mainland Europe.

If the UK waits 30years and stays on the current path, we will be in hock to the IMF and subject to draconian economic measures, we ve lost the ability to borrow money, our credit rating is shot, and we are too poor to increase taxes.

@Alexandra2001 there was Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless, but that was a while ago.

Iirc - neither of them got elected as UKIP MPs: they changed parties after getting voted in as Conservatives ie under false pretences

Saying that no UKIP MPs were elected and me saying that the decision to enter the EEC/EC/EU wasn't revisited until 41 years had passed from 1975 are not contradictory statments. People decided the outcome directly in 1975 and the had no further opportunity to do so in a similar way until 2016.

I'd expect any government to govern for the benefit of the people of the UK too. Various governments haven't, for most of the time I've been alive and able to vote, but that doesn't change that this is my expectation. The difference between us is that for me what the people say they want, directly, they should have.

Leaving was the outcome i wanted yes, and that was delivered (eventually). The country is not "on its knees", we are facing serious economic, societal and political challenges but we aren't on our knees. Ukraine would be an example of a country where such a description applies, Yemen would be another.

If Labour get elected on a pro EU manifesto, not rejoin but closer ties etc, then that is all the mandate needed to change course BUT equally, if the Tories win at the next GE, then we will have voted not to change & i will have to accept that.

We live in a democracy, its not for any brexitier or remainer to dictate terms, but of course both sides are free to campaign for whatever they like for as long as they like.

Agreed, if Labour (or any other party for that matter) get elected on a manifesto which promises closer ties with the EU then that's what they should deliver because that's what the electorate have chosen.