Brexit Referendum Superthread

KingBrian2

K-9 wrote: »

Great, more extremists on either side shouting loudly and hijacking the issue.

Unfortunately a significant section of the leave side do not want immigration or contact with the EU. Sovereignty stands above all else.

That's a valid political belief, but good luck negotiating with it or trying to move forward to an agreement.

The same could be said for the abortion issue here. The extremists hijack any debate and make it about them. The UKIP seized the initiative the last time Labour, Conservatives and the SNP and others have to resonate with the voters just like how the abortion debate here has to be handled with civility no cat calling, jeering, shouting matches and smearing.

Bob24

K-9 wrote: »

Great, more extremists on either side shouting loudly and hijacking the issue.

Yeah that is the problem.

It is very sad as there are genuine intelligent discussions to be had around the shortcomings of the EU as it currently exists (I personally believe if they are not addressed other countries will follow the UK), and more broadly on the model of society which has been promoted in most Western since the 60s/70s (later in Ireland) and which is starting to be rejected by a large part of the population in many countries which feels like it is not serving them any-more.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

There are multiple discussions to be had on the desired model of society and how it is possible within the proposed Brexit framework, but in immediate practical terms the elephant in the room is the ask from leave voters to permanently end or restrict free movement of EU citizens. The only practical long term proposal on the website seems to be "One option is to examine tying the free movement of labour to offers of employment. ". However this would actually not change anything compared to the current situation, because as per EU directive 2004/38/EC it is already a rule that in order to remain in another EU country for more than 3 months an EU worker needs to be engaged in an economic activity. So it is doubtful any leave voter who quoted immigration as one of their top issues would find their concern is being addressed by this.

Ok, but your original point was that Remain voters are dismissing the referendum as invalid, that they have labelled Leave voters ill-informed and/or stupid, etc.

It’s difficult to take that argument seriously when the official Leave campaign, now rebranded as Open Britain, has clearly accepted the outcome of the referendum and has produced a recommended opening negotiating position based on the key points raised by both sides in the debate.

It’s one thing expecting Remain voters to accept the outcome of the vote. It’s another thing entirely to expect them to be happy about it and to embrace the arguments put forward by the Leave campaign, many of which have since been retracted.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

It is very sad as there are genuine intelligent discussions to be had around the shortcomings of the EU as it currently exists (I personally believe if they are not addressed other countries will follow the UK...

What shortcomings do you feel need to be addressed in order to prevent other countries leaving?

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, but your original point was that Remain voters are dismissing the referendum as invalid, that they have labelled Leave voters ill-informed and/or stupid, etc.

It’s difficult to take that argument seriously when the official Leave campaign, now rebranded as Open Britain, has clearly accepted the outcome of the referendum and has produced a recommended opening negotiating position based on the key points raised by both sides in the debate.

It’s one thing expecting Remain voters to accept the outcome of the vote. It’s another thing entirely to expect them to be happy about it and to embrace the arguments put forward by the Leave campaign, many of which have since been retracted.

This was far from my only point (and I full agree pragmatists have now moved on from the "misguided referendum" stance which largely dominant in the first few weeks after the result and still exists), and my post to which you replied quoting that link was "Beyond the now fairly hardcore May government (possibly too much), can you quote many vocal remainers who are genuinely trying to analyse the cause of the vote beyond the simplistic explanations I mentioned and offer a compromise?" (as I explained in the example I gave I don't see that in the document).

And again on your last point I will quote my previous post:

Bob24 wrote: »

I am of course not saying people who voted to remain need to agree with the concerns of leave voters, but if they want to influence the course of events in he coming months they need to understand the motivations of the winning side and take them on board in their proposals. If they don't do that they will struggle to be heard (and they of course deserve to be heard especially since the result was close, but it is also their responsibility to understand that they are not the majority and if they offer a leave framework purely based on their own concerns it is unlikely to be acceptable to the overall population).

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

What shortcomings do you feel need to be addressed in order to prevent other countries leaving?

A big one is the general impression that too much sovereignty is being lost to institutions whereby the permanent need to compromise amongst 28 members and the lack of representativeness of Europeans as a whole is giving way more power to organised international lobbies who know the in ans and outs of the system and produces less accountability compared to what happens in national parliaments (I am of course not saying those problems don't exist at all in national parliaments).

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

This was far from my only point (and I full agree pragmatists have now moved on from the "misguided referendum" stance which largely dominant in the first few weeks after the result and still exists), and my post to which you replied quoting that link was "Beyond the now fairly hardcore May government (possibly too much), can you quote many vocal remainers who are genuinely trying to analyse the cause of the vote beyond the simplistic explanations I mentioned and offer a compromise?" (as I explained in the example I gave I don't see that in the document).

I don’t understand – you don’t see what in what document?

Bob24 wrote: »

A big one is the general impression that too much sovereignty is being lost to institutions whereby the permanent need to compromise amongst 28 members and the lack of representativeness of Europeans as a whole is giving way more power to organised international lobbies who know the in ans and outs of the system and produces less accountability compared to what happens in national parliaments (I am of course not saying those problems don't exist at all in national parliaments).

That is incredibly vague – what “institutions” and “lobbies” are you referring to?

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t understand – you don’t see what in what document?

A positive answer to my question "can you quote many vocal remainers who are genuinely trying to analyse the cause of the vote beyond the simplistic explanations I mentioned and offer a compromise?"

djpbarry wrote: »

That is incredibly vague – what “institutions” and “lobbies” are you referring to?

EC, EP, ECJ, ...

And various economic or idealogical lobbying groups. Some examples: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

A positive answer to my question "can you quote many vocal remainers who are genuinely trying to analyse the cause of the vote beyond the simplistic explanations I mentioned and offer a compromise?"

I gave you one?

Bob24 wrote: »

EC, EP, ECJ, ...

And various economic or idealogical lobbying groups. Some examples: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate

So, just to be clear, the shortcomings of the EU that need to be addressed in order to prevent other countries from leaving include the general impression that too much sovereignty is being lost to the EC, EP and ECJ and the existence of lobbyists?

That's a head-scratcher.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

I gave you one?

I explained why it isn't one, but I will leave it there if this doesn't make sense to you as we are not on the same page.

djpbarry wrote: »

So, just to be clear, the shortcomings of the EU that need to be addressed in order to prevent other countries from leaving include the general impression that too much sovereignty is being lost to the EC, EP and ECJ and the existence of lobbyists?

That's a head-scratcher.

No problem if it doesn't make sense to you either. I hope it makes to other people otherwise I personally think we will be discussing again in a Frexit, Grexit, or even Germxit thread in a few years.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

I explained why it isn't one, but I will leave it there if this doesn't make sense to you as we are not on the same page.

It does make sense – I agree that anyone who voted to Leave in order to see immigration reduced significantly is not going to be happy with Open Britain’s proposals.

But then, anyone who wants to see significant reductions in immigration is not going to be satisfied with anything other than a Hard Brexit. The problem is that most of the population want to remain in the single market, hence the compromise put forward by Open Britain.

The obvious root of the problem here is the Leave campaign’s totally unrealistic suggestion that the UK could have both access to the single market and significant immigration controls.

Bob24 wrote: »

No problem if it doesn't make sense to you either. I hope it makes to other people otherwise I personally think we will be discussing again in a Frexit, Grexit, or even Germxit thread in a few years.

That’s a total cop-out. You argue that the EU has shortcomings that need addressing (which I’m not disagreeing with, by the way), but you can’t point to anything specific? A “general impression” is not something any governmental body has a great deal of power to combat and lobbyists are something that all forms of government have to deal with (as you admit yourself).

I think it's fair to say that not enough people understand 'why the EU' tbh.

By including others, we have to pool sovereignty. It's impossible to have a meaningful union otherwise. If people can randomly 'exert their sovereignty' to avoid the costs of the benefits that that union can accrue to its members. That's a ground truth that needs to be accepted before the conversation can move on.

Some would argue that those benefits aren't worth those costs, but many, many more are simple naive and ignorant of both the costs and the potential benefits!

It was a huge problem with how the Remain side fought the referendum. There was nowhere near positivity, nowhere near explaining why the costs that the EU bring about are worth it, what is actually delivered.

Tbh it goes back far far far further than the beginning of the referendum campaign though. The UK has for years used the EU as the scapegoat.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that not enough people understand 'why the EU' tbh.

By including others, we have to pool sovereignty. It's impossible to have a meaningful union otherwise. If people can randomly 'exert their sovereignty' to avoid the costs of the benefits that that union can accrue to its members. That's a ground truth that needs to be accepted before the conversation can move on.

Some would argue that those benefits aren't worth those costs, but many, many more are simple naive and ignorant of both the costs and the potential benefits!

It was a huge problem with how the Remain side fought the referendum. There was nowhere near positivity, nowhere near explaining why the costs that the EU bring about are worth it, what is actually delivered.

Tbh it goes back far far far further than the beginning of the referendum campaign though. The UK has for years used the EU as the scapegoat.

I agree that the campaign was terrible from the Remain camp. It was a re-hash of the Scotland referendum where they tried to scare the people to vote their way and the voters just didn't fall for it again.

I think it may just be a case where the EU just didn't benefit those leave voters. How do you explain to someone about the financial benefits of the EU if they are receiving no direct benefit from the areas where it happens (City of London and Sunderland)? All they will know is that their benefits are being reduced and the NHS is failing and the apparent benefits from the EU is not stopping this from happening.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree that the campaign was terrible from the Remain camp. It was a re-hash of the Scotland referendum where they tried to scare the people to vote their way and the voters just didn't fall for it again.

I think it may just be a case where the EU just didn't benefit those leave voters. How do you explain to someone about the financial benefits of the EU if they are receiving no direct benefit from the areas where it happens (City of London and Sunderland)? All they will know is that their benefits are being reduced and the NHS is failing and the apparent benefits from the EU is not stopping this from happening.

I fundamentally disagree with this.

I believe that there was a perception that the EU didn't benefit those leave voters, but would argue vehemently against that actually being the case. The direct and indirect benefits for the entirety of the nation of being within the EU are both as varied as they are important.

Ultimately though, the conversation never got beyond baby steps, and people were never actually afforded the chance to genuinely consider their position (at least not any who had not already shown some genuine interest in the question). What timid and small-time "Why is there a EU", "What is the EU", "Why are we in the EU" 15 minute segments that popped up on BBC over the course of the past year were simply not enough.

The Remain campaign needs to carry the weight of that to be perfectly honest. They had so much material to use, to chose from and to educate people in what exactly the EU was delivering for them, yet they stuck to the negatives and ultimately the shouting competition was won by those who had the negatives that resonated deeper.

Bob24

Enzokk wrote: »

I think it may just be a case where the EU just didn't benefit those leave voters. How do you explain to someone about the financial benefits of the EU if they are receiving no direct benefit from the areas where it happens (City of London and Sunderland)? All they will know is that their benefits are being reduced and the NHS is failing and the apparent benefits from the EU is not stopping this from happening.

That is indeed the core of the argument. At the end of the day and even though not everyone can articulate the reasons for their vote clearly (on both sides), it is very much a clash of power between those who see themselves as benefiting from the way their country is handling globalisation in general and from EU membership in particular, and those who don't. Those perceived benefits or drawbacks on both sides revolve around 2 broad themes - financial and cultural - and national sovereignty is also very much embedded into the discussions (How much sovereignty is being transferred to the transnational entity? Is that entity as answerable to the people as a national government? Does it overall improve or weaken the influence of the country? etc.).

It is actually quite ironic to see the British people choosing to leave - as the UK has done a good job of getting the benefits it wanted (getting access to the single market and making the EU more liberal from the inside) while retaining what it sees as critical points in terms of sovereignty but that other EU countries have transfered to EU institutions: monetary sovereignty and sovereignty over its borders (although it had accepted to sacrifice some control over immigration policies, which is one point over which acceptance in the population has shrunk and a large part of the referendum result).

In my view it basically means that to many people they don't see the financial benefit for them anymore or the cultural aspect is becoming more important and justifies a financial sacrifice (they basically think the UK is changing too much and losing its identity). On the other end of the spectrum you have people who see career opportunities related to globalisation, are probably less concerned about preserving a national cultural identity than getting in contact with different cultures, and mostly live in large and well connected cities (they might live in London but possibly know and enjoy Paris or New-York more than they know and enjoy some of the English countryside - and might feel closer to a colleague abroad living in another "global" city than they to an unemployed person living in the back-arse of England). This clash of opinions is at the core of the Brexit vote but is of course not a UK specific issue and exists in most Western countries. Though not as much in Ireland, which it has to be said joined what can broadly be called the liberal/libertarian/globalist bandwagon (neutral description and no positive or negative judgement in these words) later than many other European countries. The danger I personally foresee is that if those two groups cannot be brought back together some invisible borders will start to appear in many countries whereby too parts of the population are almost becoming foreign to each other - and I don't think this would be good for any country.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with this.

I believe that there was a perception that the EU didn't benefit those leave voters, but would argue vehemently against that actually being the case. The direct and indirect benefits for the entirety of the nation of being within the EU are both as varied as they are important.

Ultimately though, the conversation never got beyond baby steps, and people were never actually afforded the chance to genuinely consider their position (at least not any who had not already shown some genuine interest in the question). What timid and small-time "Why is there a EU", "What is the EU", "Why are we in the EU" 15 minute segments that popped up on BBC over the course of the past year were simply not enough.

The Remain campaign needs to carry the weight of that to be perfectly honest. They had so much material to use, to chose from and to educate people in what exactly the EU was delivering for them, yet they stuck to the negatives and ultimately the shouting competition was won by those who had the negatives that resonated deeper.

I cannot disagree with that, the benefits has never been brought to light by the Remain campaign. I don't know if they were just complacent about the vote or if there is actually no benefit. My guess would be many of them would not still be in favour to remain in the EU if there was no benefit to the country, so they must just have been confident that the big scare would work.

Bob24 wrote: »

That is indeed the core of the argument. At the end of the day and even though not everyone can articulate the reasons for their vote clearly (on both sides), it is very much a clash of power between those who see themselves as benefiting from the way their country is handling globalisation in general and from EU membership in particular, and those who don't. Those perceived benefits or drawbacks on both sides revolve around 2 broad themes - financial and cultural - and national sovereignty is also very much embedded into the discussions (How much sovereignty is being transferred to the transnational entity? Is that entity as answerable to the people as a national government? Does it overall improve or weaken the influence of the country? etc.).

It is actually quite ironic to see the British people choosing to leave - as the UK has done a good job of getting the benefits it wanted (getting access to the single market and making the EU more liberal from the inside) while retaining what it sees as critical points in terms of sovereignty but that other EU countries have transfered to EU institutions: monetary sovereignty and sovereignty over its borders (although it had accepted to sacrifice some control over immigration policies, which is one point over which acceptance in the population has shrunk and a large part of the referendum result).

In my view it basically means that to many people they don't see the financial benefit for them anymore or the cultural aspect is becoming more important and justifies a financial sacrifice (they basically think the UK is changing too much and losing its identity). On the other end of the spectrum you have people who see career opportunities related to globalisation, are probably less concerned about preserving a national cultural identity than getting in contact with different cultures, and mostly live in large and well connected cities (they might live in London but possibly know and enjoy Paris or New-York more than they know and enjoy some of the English countryside - and might feel closer to a colleague abroad living in another "global" city than they to an unemployed person living in the back-arse of England). This clash of opinions is at the core of the Brexit vote but is of course not a UK specific issue and exists in most Western countries. Though not as much in Ireland, which it has to be said joined what can broadly be called the liberal/libertarian/globalist bandwagon (neutral description and no positive or negative judgement in these words) later than many other European countries. The danger I personally foresee is that if those two groups cannot be brought back together some invisible borders will start to appear in many countries whereby too parts of the population are almost becoming foreign to each other - and I don't think this would be good for any country.

The fact that people didn't see or just ignored the benefits of the EU in areas where the most money from the EU was received is evidence of this. People honestly could not see or chose to ignore the EU funds in areas like Cornwall. As soon as the vote came in the biggest concern was that the UK Government keep paying the funds these ares received from the EU. Baffling logic in my opinion.

Bob24

Enzokk wrote: »

The fact that people didn't see or just ignored the benefits of the EU in areas where the most money from the EU was received is evidence of this. People honestly could not see or chose to ignore the EU funds in areas like Cornwall. As soon as the vote came in the biggest concern was that the UK Government keep paying the funds these ares received from the EU. Baffling logic in my opinion.

Yes this clearly is what was at play. Understanding if the bad perception of the EU is fictional or based on facts is a very important question in my opinion and it is a difficult one to answer (overall I am part of the group which is economically benefiting even though i definitely share some of the concerns of the other one).

The quick and straight forward answer is to take economic figures and say the economy has been growing and unemployment is low enough (I am talking UK only, not EU wide). But at the same time gross economic figures are not necessarily a representation of people's daily life (the wealth might not spread to everyone and people's lives aren't just about money), and calling 52% of voters clueless or just lacking education about the benefits of the EU is not a plausible explanation for the vote in my opinion. Many leave voters are older generations who used to support EU membership (67% voted to join in 1975) and have a long term daily life experience of how the country has changed since joining the EU (not economic figures, the actual changes in their life environment). Unfortunately we are more hearing from the likes of Farage and Johnson than those people on the ground, who possibly have more interesting things to say.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

It does make sense – I agree that anyone who voted to Leave in order to see immigration reduced significantly is not going to be happy with Open Britain’s proposals.

But then, anyone who wants to see significant reductions in immigration is not going to be satisfied with anything other than a Hard Brexit. The problem is that most of the population want to remain in the single market, hence the compromise put forward by Open Britain.

The obvious root of the problem here is the Leave campaign’s totally unrealistic suggestion that the UK could have both access to the single market and significant immigration controls.

Yes this is what I it boils down to: are most people ready to sacrifice some access to the single market in exchange for regained control over immigration policies (and other things, that one being the most obvious one)?

I am removing the unrealistic Brexit campaign promises you quoted from the equation as we agree the UK is unlikely to fully have it both ways. Once you are passed that, I think a majority of leave voters are actually ready to sacrifice some level of access to the single market in exchange for the other things they want (I have partly explained the reasons for my reasoning in this previous post) - a few remain voters might also think that now that the UK is leaving they might as well take back that lost sovereignty. Given the direction she is taking (a complete departure from her position during the campaign) this is probably what May is also thinking. The real test will be in a years's time when what is actually on the table becomes more clear and the population reacts to it.

Thomas_...

Another sign for the prospect of Mrs May's "hard Brexit" Approach and how it will be dealt with:

http://www.thejournal.ie/theresa-may-francois-hollande-3038195-Oct2016/

Francois Hollande to Theresa May: 'You want a hard Brexit? The talks will be hard too'

FRENCH PRESIDENT FRANCOIS Hollande has warned British Prime Minister Theresa May during her first European Union summit that she would face tough negotiations if she insists on a hard Brexit .
May called on EU leaders to work together for a smooth withdrawal following Britain s shock June vote to leave the bloc, but Hollande said her apparent preference for a decisive break means she will not get an easy ride.
I have said it very clearly: Madame Theresa May wants a hard Brexit? Then talks will be hard too, he told reporters as he arrived for the two-day talks in Brussels.

Bob24

Thomas_... wrote: »

Another sign for the prospect of Mrs May's "hard Brexit" Approach and how it will be dealt with:

Is anyone in France or in Europe still listening to what Hollande is saying though? ;-) (the man's term will be over in 6 months and it looks like his approval rate is so low that he won't even be able to be a candidate at the primary election of his own party, let alone at the next French presidential election)

Thomas_...

I don't think that it matters much whether anone in Europe is listening to what Hollande is saying because what he said might just reflect the mood among the many of the EU member states and their attitude towards the way Mrs May is trying to get another special treatment for the UK by having the UK exiting the EU which in her will would end with the UK being better off than the remaining EU members and getting access to the single market and that is a no-runner.

It is a matter of principles that is at the core of the whole procedure to come and I rather doubt, whether Hollande is being listened to or not, that many EU member states don't like to be seen as being fooled by that Brit PM who is still stirring anti-EU sentiments in the UK.

I'am all for giving her a hard time for she really deserves it and her clownish Foreign Sectretary with her too.

Nody

Bob24 wrote: »

Is anyone in France or in Europe still listening to what Hollande is saying though? ;-) (the man's term will be over in 6 months and it looks like his approval rate is so low that he won't even be able to be a candidate at the primary election of his own party, let alone at the next French presidential election)

Well they may or may not listen to him but have a gander at when and how she was given a chance to give her speech to the rest of the group.

Bob24

Nody wrote: »

Well they may or may not listen to him but have a gander at when and how she was given a chance to give her speech to the rest of the group.

If this is all accurate (I don't find another source describing the diner) this is indeed more noteworthy than what Hollande said, although the message is different (based on how the article describes it, it is more about signifying to her that they won't have any shape of formal discussion about the topic until article 50 is invoked).

FrancieBrady

Bob24 wrote: »

If this is all accurate (I don't find another source describing the diner) this is indeed more noteworthy than what Hollande said, although the message is different (based on how the article describes it, it is more about signifying to her that they won't have any shape of formal discussion about the topic until article 50 is invoked).

Leaving her until 1am is a massive mood indicator too.

flatty

It may have been mentioned already, I haven't scrolled up, but the lib dems, the only party openly campaigning on a remain platform, made huge gains in the Witney? (iirc) by election. This may have some bearing on the iron lady mark 2.
I can only think that all this hard brexit talk is just that, talk. The only chance she has of retaining the middle is a brexit which is fairly soft I'd imagine.
There is a lot of trouble ahead.

Bob24

flatty wrote: »

It may have been mentioned already, I haven't scrolled up, but the lib dems, the only party openly campaigning on a remain platform, made huge gains in the Witney? (iirc) by election. This may have some bearing on the iron lady mark 2.
I can only think that all this hard brexit talk is just that, talk. The only chance she has of retaining the middle is a brexit which is fairly soft I'd imagine.
There is a lot of trouble ahead.

Interesting figures indeed. While still the largest party by far the Tories also saw a huge drop (15%), but on the other hand last time the candidate was Cameron and an existing/potential PM will always get a bonus for notoriety and at it is seen as potentially being beneficial for the constituency to have a PM - both certainly had an impact but difficult to know the split between this and Brexit.

The constituency also voted 53.6% to remain and 46.4 to leave. This kind of confirms many remain voters from both ends of the political spectrum are flocking to the Lib Dems.

Leonard Hofstadter

Bob24 wrote: »

The constituency also voted 53.6% to remain and 46.4 to leave. This kind of confirms many remain voters from both ends of the political spectrum are flocking to the Lib Dems.

The fact that the Tory candidate was a leave supporter didn't help them either. Still, it's no mean achievement by the Lib Dems, that is a massive swing in the 10th safest Tory seat!

Although in the national polls, the Lib Dems have barely changed, they have made significant gains in various local by-elections right around the UK since the referendum was held and obviously they had a spectacular performance in Witney.

For me, as a remain voter, the Lib Dems are by far the most attractive party; they are rabidly in favour of the EU, they always have been and are busy trying to ensure that as little as possible changes (which is the best outcome for everyone). They are a sensible and credible alternative to the Tories, and are not bonkers crazy like Labour.

Labour have managed to shoot themselves in the foot, not only by re-electing Corbyn, but by not promising to have an election to reverse this idiotic decision to leave the EU and not being totally in favour of the single market (which annoys remain voters), but then still favouring mass immigration (which is one of the driving factors behind the leave vote). So, Labour have managed to simultaneously annoy people on both sides of the EU divide!

Charles Babbage

captainspeed wrote: »

Labour have managed to shoot themselves in the foot, not only by re-electing Corbyn, but by not promising to have an election to reverse this idiotic decision to leave the EU and not being totally in favour of the single market (which annoys remain voters), but then still favouring mass immigration (which is one of the driving factors behind the leave vote). So, Labour have managed to simultaneously annoy people on both sides of the EU divide!

Indeed, free immigration and restricted trade is about the least popular combination and Corbyn has managed to reach this!

Nody

Bob24 wrote: »

If this is all accurate (I don't find another source describing the diner) this is indeed more noteworthy than what Hollande said, although the message is different (based on how the article describes it, it is more about signifying to her that they won't have any shape of formal discussion about the topic until article 50 is invoked).

Well if I'm reading between the lines it looks like May want to buy freedom of trade for specific areas such as car manufacturing and finance services etc. while stopping freedom of movement for EU citizen. Seeing that UK is already a net contributor I wonder how many multiples of the current amount she'd be willing to put on the table (considering that it would be a major issue to approve) and how that would go down with the UK population in general. If May announced that they pay 30 billion EUR a year going forward to keep free trade for Finance and Car Manufacturing with that lovely red bus going around talking about the 250 million GBP back to NHS...

Bob24

captainspeed wrote: »

Labour have managed to shoot themselves in the foot, not only by re-electing Corbyn, but by not promising to have an election to reverse this idiotic decision to leave the EU and not being totally in favour of the single market (which annoys remain voters), but then still favouring mass immigration (which is one of the driving factors behind the leave vote). So, Labour have managed to simultaneously annoy people on both sides of the EU divide!

Yes indeed. At this stage either the red to chose between changing their stance on immigration to regain some of the may voters they lost to UKIP, or getting more liberal about the economy to stop losing their libertarian/liberal voters the Lib Dems. Their current position is full of contradictions as has the effect you mentioned on voters.