The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[Hairyloon]

Or the PM of the UK in his full knowledge and understanding of the situation felt that the UK was better off within the EU so he did his job to try to convince people of that. He failed, but to say you voted against that is an absurd statement to make...

 

It is not absurd at all. A survey after the vote suggested that Cameron and Johnson were neck and neck in how much they had influenced the voting despite being on opposite sides of the campaign.

And Farage did better than anyone at convincing people to remain.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2017 at 16:48 ----------

 

You weren't asked to vote for or against a party.

 

No, we were asked to vote in an advisory referendum.

[chalga]

If the EU referendum was party-political, one could argue this General Election is an EU referendum in all but name.

 

It'll only be that if the parties say they will cancel Brexit in their manifestos.

[El Cid]

If the EU referendum was party-political, one could argue this General Election is an EU referendum in all but name.

 

The 2010 General Election is thought to have cost the taxpayer £113m, while £142m was spent holding the EU referendum last June.

[Carlinate]

Both of the statements above are clearly false.

 

Firstly, EU member states do not have the ability to negotiate their own trade deals. The EU has also not been successful in negotiating comprehensive trade deals with the big players in the global economy;

 

Secondly, in the era of floating exchange rates (at least as far as the UK and various other Western countries are concerned), currency values are largely determined by market forces rather than by government manipulation or government decree.

 

Are you saying that the EU has negotiated better and more numerous trade deals on behalf of the EU member countries that are currently more successful than we are at exporting?

 

Because if they haven't, then I can only assume that those countries negotiated on their own behalf using their EU membership as an advantage in the deals.

 

Being EU members provided us with preferential market access to over 50 countries outside of the EU.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUqqHos73TAhVlBcAKHeO5AC4QFghHMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbi.org.uk%2Fbusiness-issues%2Fuk-and-the-european-union%2Feu-business-facts%2F10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf%2F&usg=AFQjCNEfOXlXm8Zd8wMgir6Qpt4RLfuLJw

 

Once we leave it will be necessary to renegotiate all of these agreements and the chances of being able to achieve the same deal as a smaller market is remote.

 

As for the currency we are able to effect change by QE etc far more than an individual country in the Eurozone which should be an advantage. Whether that is an advantage to the individual citizen is another matter.

[sgtkate]

It is not absurd at all. A survey after the vote suggested that Cameron and Johnson were neck and neck in how much they had influenced the voting despite being on opposite sides of the campaign.

And Farage did better than anyone at convincing people to remain.

 

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying people should have voted remain simply because Cameron told them to, but to vote Leave solely or mostly because Cameron supported Remain doesn't seem like the greatest bit of logic to me.

[Puggie]

He failed, but to say you voted against that is an absurd statement to make.

 

It's not absurd, it's the nature of politics. It's how Trump got elected. People voted against Hillary in protest. It's why there's so much mud-slinging amongst political parties.

[sgtkate]

It's not absurd, it's the nature of politics. It's how Trump got elected. People voted against Hillary in protest. It's why there's so much mud-slinging amongst political parties.

 

So let me get this straight. You think that if the PM, whose job it is to try to get the best for his/her country, decides that based on evidence presented to them that one option is better than the other, they should simply do nothing about it? That would almost be treason wouldn't it, intentionally betraying ones country by inaction?

 

I've not even started pointing out that this wasn't a party based vote either. I can understand people voting for anyone but soandso in a party based election but this? No wonder we got Brexit if this is a leaver's logic.

[chalga]

It's not absurd, it's the nature of politics. It's how Trump got elected. People voted against Hillary in protest. It's why there's so much mud-slinging amongst political parties.

 

How many Brexiters do you think voted for the same reasons as you?

[Hairyloon]

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying people should have voted remain simply because Cameron told them to, but to vote Leave solely or mostly because Cameron supported Remain doesn't seem like the greatest bit of logic to me.

 

It was sold as a once in a lifetime opportunity to vote for change: it was likely to be the only vote that most people would ever get that would actually make a difference.

People want change, they voted for change, even though the change they wanted was not the change offered on the ballot paper.

 

It was an advisory referendum and the electorate did not realise how stupid and spineless parliament has become.

[apelike]

No, we were asked to vote in an advisory referendum.

 

Although the referendum was advisory most people voting would not have realised that and the advice by the Government in their leaflets was:

 

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

 

The leaflet was sent to all householders so there can be no mistake on what it meant despite it being Pro-EU and containing some lies. It also never stated in it that the referendum was advisory for the simple fact referendums are usually advisory unless it changes law. It was also very clear from that leaflet what action the government would take. After the triggering of A50 went to court and the government lost its appeal it finally went to parliament and was passed unanimously. That means that parliament then advised it to go ahead fulfilling the advisory role.

 

So yes it was advisory but that advise was to go ahead and leave the EU as thats what the majority voted.

Edited April 24, 2017 by apelike