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.

I agree. Brexit was always going to be a shitshow on the basis of there being so many permutations of what leaving would mean. On the basis that leaving was so badly defined, it was certain that many who voted out are now disenfranchised and unhappy. I think that referendum could have been run every day for a week, and with such a low margin, would have flip flopped either way every time.

I also think that when any argument starts to make links like that, it undermines its credibility. Same with factually incorrect statements etc. All it ends up doing is fuelling the disgruntlement and increasing the divide.

If the UK is to minimise the time it will take to get back on its feet, it will need to work together and find solutions for the mess it is in, regardless of how it got there. I think the most corny expression I've heard about such things is that the toothpaste is out of the tube. There's no putting it back in now.

As for the repeated election of Farage, that's another thing that beggars belief. He never turned up to anything. Talk about ineffective.

Lots of discourse, not very much of it academic.

They voted leave in the 2016 referendum as they thought funding poorer countries did not make sense. Both spent their lives working in the NHS and thought it had become a charity shop for health care tourists.

Well, then they were a bit stupid and a bit xenophobic.

Funding poorer countries to turn them into richer countries is exactly how the EU became rich and powerful. Which we used to benefit from.

Any Eu citizens working over here and using the NHS were paying for it just as much as we were.

I remember that too. 50 years to feel the full benefits of Brexit. Sound about right after being in the EU for 48 years.

Frankly, just too stupid a comment to respond to.

It's too complicated for the man in the street to understand.

I don't think he was in any way incorrect. I spent hours researching before deciding my vote, and what the effects were going to be afterwards, and even I had absolutely no idea exactly how much of a shit show it would turn out to be.

The Government is currently in a mess over its Rwanda policy. It wasn't a Manifesto (pledge)

Its part of the Goverment promises to reduce immgration.

Even if it works, and they manage to legislate against reality, they would only send at most 200 asylum seekers to Rwanda. Have you seen the latest immigration figure? It's nothing more than a racist dog whistle.

Disagree. The parties present what they think is best for the country. Those who are interested listen to the various parties and select which they think is best.

In the case of EU membership, it was the Consertavive Party who thought is was best to allow people to choose. So a referendum was held on 23 June 2016. More people selected Leave than Remain. Hence the Goverment was obliged to deliver.

That's simply not true though. Cameron wanted his Thatcher moment and to face off the head bangers in his party, so announced the referendum. He then accidentally won the election, which he didn't expect, and had to go through with it. His litany of errors descended into farce at that point.

The government was not obliged to deliver on a non-binding referendum, however I refer you back to my previous sentence.

Also, pretty much nobody in the government thought it was a good idea to leave the EU, but they kept painting themselves into corners out of fear of the Daily Heil, and here we are, the laughing stock of the world.

And Starmer has ruled out anything sensible out of exactly the same fear...

I'd like to comment on one of your earlier assertions that Labour were a remain party of the 2019 GE. My recollection is that they weren't which is one of the reasons they lost. Corbyn had been a eurosceptic forever. I think the flip-flop you refer to was a softening of this approach, but I don't think he ever went as far as to say that, if elected, he would support remaining.

It was Emily Thorberry on Question Time 5 September 2019. As foreign secretary she would get the best deal for the UK, but at the same time campaign to remain.

Why is nobody talking about the single market and the customs union?

You are correct on this point. Labour in 2019 campaigning on having a second referendum. I suspect that was because the sensible ones (not Magic Grandpa, obviously) thought that was the best way to reverse the dreadful mistake that had been made.

In fact, the majority of votes went to parties campaigning either for a second referendum, or to rejoin. It's because of our screwed up FPTP system that we ended up with a massive majority of MPs on less than 40% of the vote.

But yay, democracy...

It’s been ruled out already

Not sure what the motivation for that is. Maybe Labour MPs don’t get any demand for this and prefer the safety of appealing to Brexit voters

Because sending 200 migrants to Rwanda in exchange for an unspecified number of migrants is more important.

Labour have already ruled both SM and CU out

Does anyone email their Labour MP? Loads of threads on here with same posters but I’m guessing it’s not landing outside mn

By people I really mean the public rather than politicians. Brexit is pretty academic but the customs union in particular would make a lot of economic sense.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it crop towards the end of a Labour first term.

@HannibalHeyes

Well, then they were a bit stupid and a bit xenophobic.

I rermember that comment being made ever since 23 June 2016. I thought democracy was people being allowed to vote how the wish for whatever reason?

I spent hours researching before deciding my vote,

Are you the poster from the past that said people should be examined before they are allowed to vote?

That's simply not true though. Cameron wanted his Thatcher moment and to face off the head bangers in his party, so announced the referendum.

A referendum was held in 1975. So, why not again in 2016? Are people not allowed to change their minds?

The government was notobliged to deliver on a non-binding referendum, however I refer you back to my previous sentence.

This is another 7 year old comment. The booklet sent to each household contained the statement.

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide

Link is

why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

How can this wording be considered as advisory?

Also, pretty much nobody in the government thought it was a good idea to leave the EU

And yet 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50

It's the same fear of the Daily Heil. It would be "BETRAYAL" headline all round.

Frankly, Labour should pull on their big boy pants and take a stand, but we're on government by media now, and it's the Tory media that controls the debate.

Unfortunately my MP is Conservative, however I have met him to register my displeasure at the party of buffoons he represents.

Well, then they were a bit stupid and a bit xenophobic.

I rermember that comment being made ever since 23 June 2016. I thought democracy was people being allowed to vote how the wish for whatever reason?

That doesn't change the truth of it though.

I spent hours researching before deciding my vote,

Are you the poster from the past that said people should be examined before they are allowed to vote?

Nothing to do with me. An Ad Hominem attack?

That's simply not true though. Cameron wanted his Thatcher moment and to face off the head bangers in his party, so announced the referendum.

A referendum was held in 1975. So, why not again in 2016? Are people not allowed to change their minds?

The "willy of the people" was only in favour of Leave for a space of a few months. This was driven by the Heil, the Barclay Brothers, Murdock, Putin, and various other bad faith actors who don't want to pay tax in this country. Either side of the referendum it was the other way. But we can't possibly have another referendum now, can we. People aren't allowed to change their minds now...

The government was notobliged to deliver on a non-binding referendum, however I refer you back to my previous sentence.

*This is another 7 year old comment. The booklet sent to each household contained the statement.

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide

Link is

why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

How can this wording be considered as advisory?

That was yet another of Cameron's catastrophic catalogue of errors. The man really is a f*cking idiot.

Also, pretty much nobody in the government thought it was a good idea to leave the EU

And yet 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50

Yes. Cowardice is strong. Particularly when you've seen one of your own shot and killed in the street.

Starmer ruled out the SM and CU in July 2022

He probably was fearful of backlash but it was too early and if their intention is to wait another five years a lot can happen in that time. Particularly given general increasing volatility amd EU political shifts

It is true to say that the government did state that they would abide by the decision, however I think the point @HannibalHeyes was making was that they didn't need to do this. Holding a referendum would have fulfilled the obligation. Not abiding by it would have indeed caused many people's gruntle to be well and truly dissed. None of them, of either side, ever thought the public would vote to leave.

Not to divert from the topic, but is it possible to be 'gruntled', or just 'disgruntled'?

Edit - I've just looked it up. One can be gruntled, although it seems that not many of us are 🤣

I think it's true to say that since 2012, this country has got ever less gruntled, and considerably more dis...

..thought that was the best way to reverse the dreadful mistake that had been made

LibDems offered to reverse Brexit in the 2019 GE, but voters ignored.

In fact, the majority of voteswent to parties campaigning either for a second referendum

That assumes those who wanted a further referendum were all remain supporters? That people ignored LibDems suggests that people did not want Brexit to be reversed.

Neither major party has suggested the FPTP system should be abolished. That in the last 100 years there has been 20 conservative wins and 8 labour wins suggests that people are happy with the FPTP system

That people ignored LibDems suggests that people did not want Brexit to be reversed.

It's not really difficult to see why. Nobody thinks the Lib Dems will get enough votes to form a government, so they don't vote for them. It's not really rocket surgery.

Neither major party has suggested the FPTP system should be abolished.

Because, in this case, both are as bad as each other, and hope for complete power. Whereas in civilised countries parties agree to work together for the good of the country, Labour and the Nat C's just want absolute power.

@WorldGlobeTrotter did anyone run on a second referendum?

You may not be saying this anyway, but in case I’ve misremembered, I only recall Lib Dem with the rejoin campaign

Reform have talked about wanting PR and given how smaller far right parties are rising in EU it could have that impact

Eg The Netherlands and Germany

The Lib Dems were remain. Labour were for a referendum on the "deal" with remaining an option. As I recall, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and some of the Northern Irish parties were all for some variant of a referendum.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-result-boris-johnson-pro-brexit-referendum-voters-conservatives-a9245866.html

@Happy None of them, of either side, ever thought the public would vote to leave.

Which is why Cameron wound his neck out with the statement:

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide

Ultra confident (ie arrogant) the vote would be 100% to remain. I thought the result would be similar to the 2014 referendum in Scotland. Close, but overall remain.

@HannibalHeyes

That doesn't change the truth of it though.

UK legal definition of truth is

In the context of litigation, a statement of truth is a statement, to be included in any statement of case, witness statement, expert's report and certain other documents, that confirms that the facts stated in the document are true.

Is there any factual evidence o prove that 17.4 million are

"a bit stupid and a bit xenophobic"

Is there any factual evidence o prove that 17.4 million are

"a bit stupid and a bit xenophobic"

Yes. They voted for Brexit...

@HannibalHeyes The Lib Dems were remain. Labour were for a referendum on the "deal" with remaining an option. As I recall, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and some of the Northern Irish parties were all for some variant of a referendum

And yet remain MPs ruled out a further referendum before the GE in December 2019?

Link is:

Remain MPs hold off on forcing vote on second EU referendum | Brexit | The Guardian

Others may disagree (as they are all entitled to), but I think the 2019 GE was essentially a re-run of the 2016 referendum as the option to cancel brexit was offered.

In which case, 52% voted against plowing on with Brexit...