EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

I heard it myself.

Face it, you've got a glass house too, so throwing stones is not an activity you can engage in without consequence.

The difference is, Leave won. When are Leave going to deliver their promises? Or are they going to dodge responsibility as they've done so far?

[Pannonian]

And BTW, when you make claims, can you source them, as opposed to "I've heard it", which might as well mean "I've just made it up"? I've posted the 350m/week bus and the Turkey in the EU poster here before. Here are some of the Leave campaigners on the Norwegian option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

[Gilrandir]

The difference is, Leave won. When are Leave going to deliver their promises? Or are they going to dodge responsibility as they've done so far?

Just vote them out at next elections.

[Furunculus]

The difference is, Leave won. When are Leave going to deliver their promises? Or are they going to dodge responsibility as they've done so far?

There is no difference.

Face it, you've got a glass house too, so throwing stones is not an activity you can engage in without consequence.

I watched it said in one of the big tv debates.

[Pannonian]

There is no difference.

Face it, you've got a glass house too, so throwing stones is not an activity you can engage in without consequence.

I watched it said in one of the big tv debates.

There is no bloody difference between winning and losing? Is that your answer to the winning Leave campaign abandoning all its promises? Typical of Leave and not taking responsibility for what they say.

[Pannonian]

Just vote them out at next elections.

The Brexit minister said that Parliament (the sovereign Parliament that Brexit was supposed to take back from the EU) only gets a vote after the deed is done. The supposed opposition leader has ruled out a second referendum. So there will be no election of that kind in my lifetime. The deed is done, and the form of its implementation will be decided by a small cabinet. Not even Parliament will get a say.

[Furunculus]

There is no bloody difference between winning and losing? Is that your answer to the winning Leave campaign abandoning all its promises? Typical of Leave and not taking responsibility for what they say.

We're talking about campaign lies. They were lies, during the campaign. Told by both sides.

Typical of Remain, to shift the argument when you're losing.

[Montmorency]

Remain claimed that Leave wanted MORE immigration because they want an oz points system. Where does that leave us? Nowhere.

You wot? It was plain throughout the campaign that Leave tended towards Farage's xenophobic line, hence his claim that Turkey ere about to join the EU.

There is no difference.

Face it, you've got a glass house too, so throwing stones is not an activity you can engage in without consequence.

I watched it said in one of the big tv debates.

Is "oz points" a reference to the Australian system?

I can't find anything, so I have to ask whether the claim by Remain was that Leave wanted more immigration through a points system, or that a points system would lead to more immigration than Leave appeared to want?

If it it's the latter, then it may be a credit to Remain and a demerit to Leave.

[Beskar]

Only thing I can think of was when there was talk of free trade talks with India and I discussed was wanting freedom of movement as a condition, similar demands were expected by other nations, so as a consequence if UK signed up to those, it would mean great migration, especially if it was India for example.

[Pannonian]

Only thing I can think of was when there was talk of free trade talks with India and I discussed was wanting freedom of movement as a condition, similar demands were expected by other nations, so as a consequence if UK signed up to those, it would mean great migration, especially if it was India for example.

One irony that I found was, in the aftermath of Brexit and it becoming clear that we were lacking friends, one of those we touted around was Turkey. Whose precondition for free trade would, of course, mean free movement between Turkey and the UK. That after the Leave poster suggesting that Turkey would soon join the EU and their Muslims unbound by the free movement requirements of Brussels. One thing that's been consistent from the Leavers, and seen again on this page and last, is the unwillingness to own responsibility for their promises, preferring instead to use tu quoque arguments. I suppose that's an improvement on the arguments they used during the campaign, which was to outright lie whilst dismissing expert opinions (since proven accurate) as "Project Fear".

[Pannonian]

We're talking about campaign lies. They were lies, during the campaign. Told by both sides.

Typical of Remain, to shift the argument when you're losing.

Remain aren't losing. Remain have lost. Leave have won. It's up to Leave to keep their promises, as they are in power and get to decide what happens. Are you going to hold the Leave campaign to their promises?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Remain aren't losing. Remain have lost. Leave have won. It's up to Leave to keep their promises, as they are in power and get to decide what happens. Are you going to hold the Leave campaign to their promises?

Ideally we should all of hold our elected representatives to their campaign promises....we do not live in an ideal world, so I doubt you will get the sweeping response of "But didn't you say that..." for which you are hoping.

[Pannonian]

Ideally we should all of hold our elected representatives to their campaign promises....we do not live in an ideal world, so I doubt you will get the sweeping response of "But didn't you say that..." for which you are hoping.

In the UK, if an elected government deems itself unable to carry through its manifesto with its Commons mandate, they traditionally call an election to get a new mandate, or try to form a workable coalition. Failing that, the status quo persists until the next election, when there will perforce be a new mandate of some sort for someone.

[Gilrandir]

The Brexit minister said that Parliament (the sovereign Parliament that Brexit was supposed to take back from the EU) only gets a vote after the deed is done. The supposed opposition leader has ruled out a second referendum. So there will be no election of that kind in my lifetime. The deed is done, and the form of its implementation will be decided by a small cabinet. Not even Parliament will get a say.

You said once you believed in democracy. Brexit was democracy in action. Now you have to lump it.

And in the post I responded to you clamored not for a new referendum, but for the responsibility of Leave politicians. When those who promoted Leave are out of parliament you should consider it a justice done to them according to the rules of democracy.

[Furunculus]

Remain aren't losing. Remain have lost. Leave have won. It's up to Leave to keep their promises, as they are in power and get to decide what happens. Are you going to hold the Leave campaign to their promises?

I want you to try really hard to let the following message penetrate that skull of yours:

Both sides lied. Both sides played fast and lose with the truth. Both sides speculated on the future (mendaciously - to support their cause).

Face it, you've got a glass house too, so throwing stones is not an activity you can engage in without consequence.

Remain - Nasty neoliberals running leave actually want MORE immigration (as this is the consequence of a points system).
Clegg - I see the EU in ten years time as being more or less the same as it is now (so no need to worry about ever-closer-union)

There were many more, on both sides, and all were designed to appeal to a particular marginal demographic.

Funnily enough, the £350m for the NHS was only made explicitly, once, the rest of the time it was couched in much more general terms as an example of what the money could be spent on. Guess which individual instance bitter remainers have fixated upon ever since...
Do you think the NHS pledge was made to grab my tribe? Right-of-Centre classical liberals whose concern was constitutional impingements on fundamental sovereignty?
No, it was made to grab your tribe, who've made the NHS a secular religion.
Do you think the Immigration pledge was made to grab my tribe? Right-of-Centre classical liberals whose concern at best was 7% of the worlds population occupying 50% of british immigration, necessitating us actively penalising countries to which we recognise a much closer affinity.
No, it was made to grab your tribe, who hoover up the working class vote that feel most threatened by unlimited migration.

It was a cross party campaign. It was a cross society campaign. There was no sane expectation that it must be seen as a single combined mandate to be enacted by ONE coherent political tribe that happens to be in power at the time.

I understand you are bitter, but you should be bitter at the following points:
1. Why was it impossible to put forward a POSITIVE message in favour of staying in the EU?
2. Why was the weak link voters on your own side, and why could they not be reassured by Remain?

[Furunculus]

Is "oz points" a reference to the Australian system?

I can't find anything, so I have to ask whether the claim by Remain was that Leave wanted more immigration through a points system, or that a points system would lead to more immigration than Leave appeared to want?

If it it's the latter, then it may be a credit to Remain and a demerit to Leave.

Apologies, it is always difficult to find spoken content via google. If I chose to watch about six hours of the bigger debates I could probably track it down.

No, it was explicitly said that Leave wanted MORE immigration. It was said as a 'clever' dig at Tory Leavers from a Labour Remainer, as an example of the Tories-as-heartless-neoliberals trope (wanting cheap labour for their satanic mills).
It was said on national TV in the weeks before the referendum, to an audience of millions.
It was a lie.

[Beskar]

1. Why was it impossible to put forward a POSITIVE message in favour of staying in the EU?

That is easy, it was an argument for status quo.

It was a case of "We have all this, but if we leave, we are screwed" versus "the EU is the evil, leave now to rake in billions from the imaginary money tree". The latter promised getting something, versus an argument saying things will get worse for people who feel at their worst. If you feel like you go nothing to lose, then someone saying you will lose things will not work,

By comparison, in the Scottish referendum, Westiminister were trying to bribe Scottish voters, so there was more incentive for the remain.

[Pannonian]

I want you to try really hard to let the following message penetrate that skull of yours:

Both sides lied. Both sides played fast and lose with the truth. Both sides speculated on the future (mendaciously - to support their cause).

Face it, you've got a glass house too, so throwing stones is not an activity you can engage in without consequence.

Remain - Nasty neoliberals running leave actually want MORE immigration (as this is the consequence of a points system).
Clegg - I see the EU in ten years time as being more or less the same as it is now (so no need to worry about ever-closer-union)

There were many more, on both sides, and all were designed to appeal to a particular marginal demographic.

Funnily enough, the £350m for the NHS was only made explicitly, once, the rest of the time it was couched in much more general terms as an example of what the money could be spent on. Guess which individual instance bitter remainers have fixated upon ever since...
Do you think the NHS pledge was made to grab my tribe? Right-of-Centre classical liberals whose concern was constitutional impingements on fundamental sovereignty?
No, it was made to grab your tribe, who've made the NHS a secular religion.
Do you think the Immigration pledge was made to grab my tribe? Right-of-Centre classical liberals whose concern at best was 7% of the worlds population occupying 50% of british immigration, necessitating us actively penalising countries to which we recognise a much closer affinity.
No, it was made to grab your tribe, who hoover up the working class vote that feel most threatened by unlimited migration.

It was a cross party campaign. It was a cross society campaign. There was no sane expectation that it must be seen as a single combined mandate to be enacted by ONE coherent political tribe that happens to be in power at the time.

I understand you are bitter, but you should be bitter at the following points:
1. Why was it impossible to put forward a POSITIVE message in favour of staying in the EU?
2. Why was the weak link voters on your own side, and why could they not be reassured by Remain?

And I'll try hard to get this message to penetrate the skull of yours also.

1. Leave won.
2. It is therefore incumbent on Leave to implement their promises.

If you win an election, you get to enjoy the fruits of your won election, by implementing what you've promised to do. If you don't want to be held responsible for your promises, stand down, hold another election, and let others take over who will be responsible for their promises.

[Furunculus]

That is easy, it was an argument for status quo.

It was a case of "We have all this, but if we leave, we are screwed" versus "the EU is the evil, leave now to rake in billions from the imaginary money tree". The latter promised getting something, versus an argument saying things will get worse for people who feel at their worst. If you feel like you go nothing to lose, then someone saying you will lose things will not work,

By comparison, in the Scottish referendum, Westiminister were trying to bribe Scottish voters, so there was more incentive for the remain.

That is not true, as I have attempted to demonstrate with links describing changes in vote weight and the consequence for areas of fundamental economic sovereignty.

It is also not true as Ivan Rogers understood the necessity of the renegotiation:
https://www.politico.eu/article/ivan...it-referendum/

It is also not a positive message. A positive message would have extolled the necessity of ever-closer-union, and the joys of our shared EUropean destiny with a single social contract. Seems to me that Remain figured that message wouldn't sell tho...

There was NO positive case sold by Remain. Why was this not possible?

[Furunculus]

And I'll try hard to get this message to penetrate the skull of yours also.

1. Leave won.
2. It is therefore incumbent on Leave to implement their promises.

If you win an election, you get to enjoy the fruits of your won election, by implementing what you've promised to do. If you don't want to be held responsible for your promises, stand down, hold another election, and let others take over who will be responsible for their promises.

There isn't a 'Leave' government.
There is a Tory gov't, which actually campaigned to Remain.
And it is willing to to enact the result of the referendum.
Do we somehow expect more of it, to somehow take responsibility for every promise made by one side of a cross-party single issue campaign?

-----------------------------------------------


p.s. has anyone in this discussion actually read All Out War or Craig Olivers account, or read Ivan Rogers lecture before I linked it above? It gets a little depressing having to cover the same ground so fruitlessly time and time again.

[Pannonian]

There isn't a 'Leave' government.
There is a Tory gov't, which actually campaigned to Remain.
And it is willing to to enact the result of the referendum.
Do we somehow expect more of it, to somehow take responsibility for every promise made by one side of a cross-party single issue campaign?

-----------------------------------------------


p.s. has anyone in this discussion actually read All Out War or Craig Olivers account, or read Ivan Rogers lecture before I linked it above? It gets a little depressing having to cover the same ground so fruitlessly time and time again.

Is this your way to deflect responsibility from what your side promised after your side won? We're not really responsible for what we've said and what we're doing.

[Pannonian]

The Leavers remind me of the the case of Gaius Gracchus and Marcus Livius Drusus. Promise the sky to win the election, then disclaim said promises after election is won.

[Furunculus]

Is this your way to deflect responsibility from what your side promised after your side won? We're not really responsible for what we've said and what we're doing.

the government can be held to account for its actions (or inactions), every five years, i recommend you take up that opportunity.

anything else is absurd... like expecting a remain win to guarantee me the status quo.

[rory_20_uk]

Neither leave nor remain can promise anything since in both cases the EU has a dominant role to play - increased integration was undertaken by the EU without the consent of any people - the only referendums that were undertaken were all "no" until there were tweaks to the rules to get a narrow yes. Leaving the EU won't give the deal they gave South Korea and Canada. Why? Because the EU doesn't want to.

[Husar]

Neither leave nor remain can promise anything since in both cases the EU has a dominant role to play - increased integration was undertaken by the EU without the consent of any people - the only referendums that were undertaken were all "no" until there were tweaks to the rules to get a narrow yes. Leaving the EU won't give the deal they gave South Korea and Canada. Why? Because the EU doesn't want to.

I'm just glad noone is blaming the EU for that since it would be like blaming the factory for not selling everything at cost price.

[rory_20_uk]

A factory that demands payment in advance to discuss goods it might then sell. Cost price? Hilarious! Although they have deals with other countries on terms they refuse to offer. And what does the EU make, exactly?

[Husar]

A factory that demands payment in advance to discuss goods it might then sell. Cost price? Hilarious! Although they have deals with other countries on terms they refuse to offer. And what does the EU make, exactly?

It sells access to a market and some forms of standardization. A bit like your ISP. What payment in advance? You don't have to pay for the exit negotiations in advance. At best you have to discuss outstanding payments. If you want to refuse to fulfill any contractual obligations, perhaps you're just a bad customer. I remember that Brexiteers wanted to rpoudly make the world more competitive again, so now the EU is behaving competitively and suddenly it's so unfair because it's bigger and wants concessions from a smaller partner. Then again the size of the EU was never accepted as a competitive advantage or a reason to stay in it, was it? Hilarious indeed.

[Gilrandir]

And what does the EU make, exactly?

So far it makes you feel sorry you have started this leave thing.

[Pannonian]

And the customs border will be between the island of Ireland and the island of Britain, rendering Northern Ireland better integrated with the Republic than with Britain. Sturgeon has asked the pertinent question of why Northern Ireland gets this preferential treatment but not Scotland, which also voted Remain. Also London, which was even stronger Remain than Northern Ireland.

[Pannonian]

The DUP leader has rejected any difference between Northern Ireland and Britain, while the SNP leader, the mayor of London and the Welsh government have said that they expect the offer made to Northern Ireland to be made available to their regions too.