If we vote for Brexit what happens

mrginge

HornetSaver wrote: »

Just a side thought. Bremainer?

Is it okay if I start calling leavers Bracists, purely because that's a more derogatory term?

Or should we stick to Remainers and Leavers (Brexiteers if you prefer)? Either way's fine with me.

What do you find derogatory about the term bremainer?

padington

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Brussels is the capital of Europe. Not going to change anytime soon.

Absolute rubbish. Just the place parliament resides. London is the financial and cultural capital of Europe decided by bums on seats. Which is what counts. Sadly not for long.

Spidernick

Masomnia wrote: »

What like the emergency budget, the stock market crashing, interest rates rising, the 'DIY recession' that is looking increasingly unlikely?

Those lies?

I'll take those four Remain 'lies' (although only Osborne's ridiculous 'emergency Budget' is an actual lie) and raise you 15 on the other side*:

https://infacts.org/cut-keep-list-top-19-brexiteer-promises/

I'm afraid it's been patently obvious for some months that Leave made Remain look like complete amateurs when it came to lies and false promises and trying to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

(*Admittedly some of these we will have to wait and see, but don't hold your breath!)

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

What do you find derogatory about the term bremainer?[/QUOTE

Not sure it is derogatory, but it is a meaningless term.
Bremainer means Brexit plus remain which is absurd and contradictory.

If it means a remainer who now believes in Brexit it is more absurd.

Perhaps it is a purile attempt to refer to those who favour a Soft Brexit?

It does nothing to enhance the quality of debate. There seems little point in a debate now that it has descended into one that tries to characterise those who want a continuing relationship with the EU but outside of it as unpatriotic as this thread tries to do.

chucknorris

BobQ wrote: »

Not sure it is derogatory, but it is a meaningless term.
Bremainer means Brexit plus remain which is absurd and contradictory.

If it means a remainer who now believes in Brexit it is more absurd.

Perhaps it is a purile attempt to refer to those who favour a Soft Brexit?

It does nothing to enhance the quality of debate. There seems little point in a debate now that it has descended into one that tries to characterise those who want a continuing relationship with the EU but outside of it as unpatriotic as this thread tries to do.

I suspect that he (HornetSaver) meant to say 'Remoaner' (rather than 'Bremainer').

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

You are right. As soon as little Britain pulls the trigger the advantage will be with the EU.
However against that all the uncertanty is damaging both sides but in my opinion there is more damage being done to the UK. Everyday in boardrooms around the world decisions are being taken that are ultimately to the detriment of Britain.

you just don't believe in free trade and that the advantages accrue to both parties do you?

you much prefer the protectionist white christian boys trading block.

Masomnia

Spidernick wrote: »

I'll take those four Remain 'lies' (although only Osborne's ridiculous 'emergency Budget' is an actual lie) and raise you 15 on the other side*:

https://infacts.org/cut-keep-list-top-19-brexiteer-promises/

I'm afraid it's been patently obvious for some months that Leave made Remain look like complete amateurs when it came to lies and false promises and trying to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

(*Admittedly some of these we will have to wait and see, but don't hold your breath!)

Did you even read what you googled? It's a list of promises, not lies!

Masomnia

padington wrote: »

We haven't left yet, it's all yet to come.

Don't be fooled, if we no longer remain the capital of Europe, the markets will factor that in and when they do, the consequences will be dire.

We were told that the emergency budget would happen, then a shortly after the vote we were told it wouldn't be happening after all. There are a lot of promises on both sides that remain to be seen, as well as a lot of 'lies' on both sides - you can debate what's a lie and what isn't.

I think the problem 'leave' had is that they were not in power and in no position to make promises or plans, so it will not end well for them.

The biggest deception for me is remain's campaign being based on the economy. It's about sovereignty, over law and for most(?) leave voters, our borders. The remain side made no attempt to make a positive case for Europe because they know that they will never win a debate over sovereignty in the EU, because people just do not want to be part of a political project; hence they gambled on being able to scare enough people into voting remain.

Had the referendum question asked something along the lines of 'Should UK law or EU be supreme in the UK?' it would be a landslide for for UK, of course.

mrginge

It does nothing to enhance the quality of debate. There seems little point in a debate now that it has descended into one that tries to characterise those who want a continuing relationship with the EU but outside of it as unpatriotic as this thread tries to do.

Indeed.

I find it interesting that we've kind of come full circle. We started with a referendum characterised by an inability for the leave side to spell out a vision.

Now we have a position where a hard Brexit is very easy to define (regardless of whether you agree with it) and a soft leave that is full of ambiguity and cannot possibly give any clarity until negotiations commence. I think it's fairly clear that there isn't a majority support for hard Brexit.

Of course we have those who simply want us to leave and carry on with exactly the same situation - same immigration, same single market, same regulations, same collective trade bargaining, same financial contribution. (I.e not really leaving).
The question we have to ask those people is is that likely to happen? Aren't the EU hell bent on making us pay ? Why would they give us the same deal as we have now?

So if someone favours a soft Brexit, I'd like them to define what they think that a soft Brexit is. What do they want to give and take?
For example, If you want the right to negotiate our own trade deals, then how does that equate with being in the single market? What do we have to give the EU in order to achieve that concession?

chucknorris

mrginge wrote: »

Indeed.

I find it interesting that we've kind of come full circle. We started with a referendum characterised by an inability for the leave side to spell out a vision.

Now we have a position where a hard Brexit is very easy to define (regardless of whether you agree with it) and a soft leave that is full of ambiguity and cannot possibly give any clarity until negotiations commence. I think it's fairly clear that there isn't a majority support for hard Brexit.

Of course we have those who simply want us to leave and carry on with exactly the same situation - same immigration, same single market, same regulations, same collective trade bargaining, same financial contribution. (I.e not really leaving).
The question we have to ask those people is is that likely to happen? Aren't the EU hell bent on making us pay ? Why would they give us the same deal as we have now?

So if someone favours a soft Brexit, I'd like them to define what they think that a soft Brexit is. What do they want to give and take?
For example, If you want the right to negotiate our own trade deals, then how does that equate with being in the single market? What do we have to give the EU in order to achieve that concession?

If we accept that the vote is over, and that we should leave the EU because that was the result of the vote, which does seem to be the situation that we are in.

I would prefer a soft Brexit to stay in the common market, I would probably go along with the Norwegian model, which would allow us to stay in the common market, but also would require us to maintain freedom of movement, and also pay fees to the EU (but with less influence). I think that this would probably be worse than the deal that we currently have now (but don't blame me, I voted remain), but probably still better than taking the hard Brexit route.

This isn't ideal, but going back and ignoring the result of the vote doesn't appear to be route that is being considered, the stance seems to be that we had a vote to leave the EU, and that is what we should do, I can live with that.