Can someone give me one benefit of Brexit.

[Tulipsroses]

It's going to be 4 years since we withdrew our membership in European Union. Apart from the passport colour (some people might prefer) can anyone name one positive change which happened since then.

June Mummery, the Lowestoft Brexit campaigner, still fervently believes in Brexit but also that her community (fisherpeople) has been utterly betrayed in Brexit, and her fishing community is certainly no better, probably much worse off. I don't understand all the issues, but I believe Mummery knows what she's talking about in this simple conclusion: Brexit has not delvered benefits for the Uk fishing community.

I'm curious about agricultural land changes after Brexit. We have livestock on many fields in East Anglia now (new). We have big field margins for wildflowers (new). We see different crops, never noticed before, trying to revitalise the soil. Have these changes delivered benefits to wildlife or the agricultural economy or carbon sequestration? James Rebanks is not hopeful about future of UK farming. I would like to hear from a Brexit-campaigner-farmer what they think of the changes.

Following the Leave vote, they continued to not make plans. Instead they devoted their energy to infighting and stretching our democracy to breaking point.

I agree. As soon as the leave result was announced, it was all:

Leave campaign was illegal
Leave was all lies
People didn't understand
The margin was to small to be binding
The referendum was advisory and not binding
etc,.........

Extensions and the Benn Act pushed through by remain MP's at unvbelievable speed had the same objective which was to ignore the result of the Referendum.

They spent their time, as the Brexiters on this thread are doing now, complaining about Remoaners, instead of getting stuck in and implementing Brexit.

MPs were elected in 2017 based on what they said before the GE. However, many changed their tune after the GE. Hence it went round in circles.

Labour were the largest offenders I would say.

Which of course they couldn't do, because there were umpteen different versions.

The question on the ballot paper had to be be an equal balance between leave or remain.

A second referendum question:

Leave with the WA that EU have offerered; or

Leave with no deal

Would have solved the issue, but was never attempted.

Given Labour were in opposition at the time you are refering to, what they did or did not do is irrelevant. The government had a majority and yet still struggled to get its legislation through, because some of its MPs were more interested in using the situation to further their own careers than governing. Oddly some people then thought that that group of MPs were the best choice to lead the country.

Given Labour were in opposition at the time you are refering to, what they did or did not do is irrelevant.

Disagree. The referendum was a single subject as opposed to a GE which can cover many subjects.

Labour's 2017 manifesto said they would honour the referendum result. The number of labour MPs who voted for the WA never exceeded 5 in the three attempts to pass the WA.

Oddly some people then thought that that group of MPs were the best choice to lead the country

I will repeat:

MPs were elected in 2017 based on what they said before the GE. However, many changed their tune after the GE. Hence it went round in circles.

Labout got excited when they won 40% of the vote in 2017 compared to Conservative of 42%. So, they switched from leave to remain and half in and half out at the same time in the hope they could force a GE and make up the 2% difference and defeat the Conservatives.

It back fired as in 2019 Labour result was the worst in 85 years.

It is irrelevant how Labour voted.

The government had a majority, it could pass any piece of legislation it wanted to but failed to because its own backbenchers were more interested in their own political careers than the country.

Control of are boarders

Extensions and the Benn Act pushed through by remain MP's at unvbelievable speed had the same objective which was to ignore the result of the Referendum.

So are you telling me that you don't believe in Parliamentary democracy? That you would prefer it if we were governed via a process of referenda all the time?
In which case, let's scrap Parliament altogether. Let the Civil servants enact the laws that people want.

IMO the Benn Act,, passed by MPs like Dominic Grieve, a man of integrity, and others like him, were, trying their level best to do what they felt was right for the country.

Or are you just trying to make a plea for this particular referendum being a special case.

BTW - you have got your Brexit. So what is your problem? Are others not allowed to disagree with you?

The government had a majority, it could pass any piece of legislation it wanted to

Disagree. Subsequent to the Gina Miller case, the WA had to passed by Parliament irrespective of which party was in power and whether or not they had a majority.

Link is

UK government forced by MPs to release Brexit legal advice – POLITICO

In T May's case, she did not have a majority which is why she teamed up with the DUP.

T May signed the WA before it was presented to Parliament which was illegal.

but failed to because its own backbenchers were more interested in their own political careers than the country.

Disagree. Look at the results of the three votes on the WA.

The number of labour MP's who voted for the WA was; 2 in the first vote, 3 in the second and 5 in the third and last vote. SNP, LibDems and Plaid (50 MPs in total) all voted against the WA in each of three attempts.

So are you telling me that you don't believe in Parliamentary democracy?

I don't remember saying that.

...and others like him, were, trying their level best to do what they felt was right for the country.

What is considered best for the country is determined by voters. People listen to the views expressed by the various parties and vote for the party they consider best.

The elected party is then responsible to deliver the policies they advocated before the election. The elected party is not permitted to say:

We have changed our minds since the election. So, we will ignore you.

Both Labour and LibDems tried that approach in 2019 and look at their results.

Unfortunately our elected Tory government is totally incompetent. I wouldn't trust them to deliver a pizza.

Can you clarify for me which of Labour or the LibDems were the elected party in 2019?

I don't remember saying that.

Are you Rishi?

Unfortunately our elected Tory government is totally incompetent. I wouldn't trust them to deliver a pizza.

I think many will have similar views. However, as always, are the alternatives any better?

Back to OP question. Apart from trades persons and the person whose wage increased by 2.20 per hour, who else has a positive or considers themselves to be better off since Brexit?

I think there will be more than those who have already posted, but may not be interested as such threads have appeared continuously since 23 June 2016.

Are you Rishi?

No. However, I would be happy to be Rishi, or any other person whose wealth is measured in the billions. With that amount of wealth, who cares what others might think?

@Peregrina @WorldGlobeTrotter @jgw1

Several points pop out of the last few comments:-

1. Cameron agreed to have a referendum. There was no legal obligation to do anything after it had been held. Admittedly, that would have sent the Brexiteers completely apoplectic which might have been fun to watch.
2. I think all parties advertise one thing in their manifesto, and the have selective memory after the election. The current lot are no different.
3. Labour lost because Jeremy Corbyn was leader.
4. What is considered best for the country is actually determined by the government, not the voters. The electorate vote the government in based on what each party says they will do in the hope that they will actually do it. So it is one level removed. If everything were run by referendums (referenda?) then that would be the electorate making decisions. The purpose of a government is to make the decisions that the electorate are too stupid I'll informed to make.
5. With hindsight, we would probably have been better off walking away immediately after we informed the EU of our departure saying "thank you, we're off. If you want a deal with us, our door is open, please come with your proposals". The longer UK advertised it had no clue what it was doing, and no plan, it became more and more of a laughing stock, and strengthened the hand of the EU.

@TooBigForMyBoots completely agree. They couldn't run a bath, let alone a country.

Sunak's wealth is only in the millions. Whilst I wouldn't turn it down, the major factor is actually his wife's wealth which is the part that's the billions.

That said, I already have a wife, and I wouldn't swap her for all the tea in China, so I'll have to stay financially less well off, but from a marriage perspective, the richest man in the world.

The elected party is then responsible to deliver the policies they advocated before the election. The elected party is not permitted to say:

We have changed our minds since the election. So, we will ignore you.

I think then that you misunderstand what Parliamentary democracy is. MPs are representatives, not delegates. They are expected to use their judgement to do what they consider best for for the country. They are supposed to represent all constituents and are not at the beck and call of those who voted for them. You would expect a particular party to stick to its manifesto but often that doesn't happen. Other issues arise which were never in the manifesto. The Government is currently in a mess over its Rwanda policy. It wasn't a Manifesto commitment, so many of us wonder why they are 'banging on about it' as they did with the EU, when there are many more pressing issues that need attending to.

Other issues arise which were never in the manifesto.

Otherwise known as "we know we promised this, but now we're in, we don't give a shit / found out it was too difficult / changed our minds / found out we could profit more from something else (delete as appropriate)."

Would you prefer a government implemented something that was in the manifesto, but, perhaps because of changing circumstances, economic conditions whatever, would be enormously damaging ? Personally, I wouldn't. I think we would be actually be much better governed if we allowed politicians to change course if whatever they were doing just clearly wasn't working and would be unlikely to start working.

I believe the Swiss had a referendum years ago, before Brexit
about ending freedom of movement. Ending it won and the government said ok,
we'll work out how to implement this. They then came back to the people and
said we're not doing it, it'll be too damaging to the country. Sensible Swiss!

That isn't what I'm saying. I completely agree that a sensible government should be able to analyse, and adapt to whatever current circumstances they face. What I am saying though is that we don't have a sensible government, and haven't had for many years (I.e not just the current shower). It would be nice if they paid some sort of homage to the promises they made to get themselves in.

Part of the mess that we are in is because some of the long term items are too difficult for them, so they hide behind other 'current circumstances'.

Covid and the NHS is a classic example of this. The NHS requires a complete overhaul. No government is willing to do this as it will take longer than their term, so they dress it up in some other way and make excuses. Then along comes covid. Current government pumps millions into the NHS, almost an open cheque book from what I hear. A very small amount of thought could have used this bottomless purse to make some real changes for good while also achieving the immediate needs of the crisis. But no, they just used it to pay for more fingers in the holes of the dam. The irony being that they could have used real change as a vehicle to win the next election. But no, there's not one ounce of strategic thinking. Just in fighting, arguing, and self serving activities. If you've been watching the covid enquiry it just beggars belief.

I don't like Boris. To be honest, I think he's an arse, however there is only one man who knows what it's like to be Prime Minister of the UK in a pandemic and it is he. Did he capitalise on that fact? No. Did he bumble about how his WhatsApp messages were 'conveniently' deleted? Yes. 🤦‍♂️

I saw Armando Iannucci interviewed a while ago. He said he could not write "The Thick of It" now as the truth is way more outrageous than the satire.

@Kendodd oh, and yes, the Swiss got it right.

We make our own laws.

We always did. Not sure what point you are making?

Sigh.

I've never made any laws, who is this we you are refering to?