Brexit

In the last General Election both major parties said they would honour brexit and push it through and the public entrusted votes to them on that belief, But the politicians who promised to honour that vote have reneged on it, If anyone has a cause to be claimed to be duped it is brexiteers

 

Party manifestos in General Elections lol. Come on Steve i thought you were better than that. There's more truth in Santa clause and the bible than there is Party manifestos, and that includes all parties.

 

What has made us unequal is membership of the EU with its mantra of moving jobs from the UK to the EU, Usually with a EU grant, The world share of trade by the EU is shrinking and taking us with it, The monetary demands of an EU that cannot balance its books and asks for more money EVERY year will eventually implode and it is better we are out of it when that happens, The economy of the UK is equal to 16 other members and losing that would harm the EU but boost the UK

 

Oh, give over. You know as well as I do that Brexit was hardly mentioned at the last election. It was fought on entirely domestic issues - primarily the legacy of Austerity. Nobody voted for one party or another at the last GE on the basis of their approach to Brexit.
The point you consistently miss is that both main parties easilyeasily claim to honour the vote for Brexit because what is meant by Brexit was completely undefined. So the politicians, as well as the public, could pursue their own preferred version of Brexit. You think that Brexit means No Deal, because it suits your narrative. But plenty of other people, both public and politicians, voted for a softer Brexit than you want. That doesn't mean they are betraying the vote; it's an inevitable consequence of an undefined Brexit at the referendum.

 

We pay 3% of our GDP to the EU. Money well spent for the collective strength. The idea that saving this sum will transform our economy is laughable, especially when we get screwed to the wall by USA, China and India in trade talks.

 

You assume to much, I would have voted for Mays deal flawed as it is, Both main parties stood on a brexit platform and manifestos confirm this although of course momentum very cleverly managed to hi jack it and nearly win it for Labour who although stood on a leave manifesto are in fact in favour of remain in the south and leave in the north

 

Whether you believe them or not is completely beside the point Al. The fact is that you vote on what the parties say that they will do. Unlike Brexit, where the vote was for 'leave' with no explanation whatsoever of what that meant, because nobody actually knew.

 

Labour policy is still to leave. Although Corbyn wants his own personal unicorns, which are no more likely than Johnson's 'have our cake and eat it'.
This isn't about parties any more. Parliament is split three ways between hard Brexiteers, soft Brexiteers and anti-Brexiteers. There would probably be an available compromise for a soft Brexit if it weren't for the undead zombie in No 10.

 

If you read Labours brexit policy it is to remain but withdraw political membership and just be a rule taker not maker

 

I voted leave. I know what that entails. It means leaving the EU. Its what it said on the ballot paper. Now i'm being told i was lied to. I'm saying go and read any parties manifesto, they are full of lies, telling you they will do this and do that but with no real substance to what they will actually do. Manifestos are full of guff, just like this whole brexit charade. Don't you see, we are all lied to every day. Whether it be remain voters, leave voters, Labour voters, Tory voters, its all a web of deceit and lies. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee, the system is broken, no amount of listening to bullshit from Farage or Johnson, or Abbott and Corbyn or bus loads of flag waving feckwits is going to change anything. The political systems of Europe are falling apart at the seams and while we all argue amongst ourselves the worlds elite are pissing themselves laughing.

 

No, Labour's policy is to leave the EU with a negotiated customs arrangement and membership of the single market. You don't think that means Brexit, but they do, which precisely makes my point that an undefined Brexit means different things to different people.

 

The magic word all along mate, 'compromise'. If there had been compromise discussed way back before Brexit had been a possibility then none of this mess may have happened. But thats politicians for you, too damn stubborn and set in their ways than to work together for the greater good. Getting the masses fighting each is exactly what they want and we fall for it every time.

 

All of this may be true, but it's completely missing my point. You say you know what voting leave meant, but you only know what it meant to you. Other people have different versions of leave from yours.

 

Why does it matter if people want to leave for different reasons? There was nothing that stipulated there was only one reason to leave. Just like there isn't one specific reason that ties all remain voters together. See, this is what happens when voters get ignored and feel they aren't being listened to, whoppers like Nigel Farage suddenly find a purpose. Could have been nipped in the bud early doors but no, the main parties always know better than everyone else don't they. Turns out they don't.

 

The right wing extremists in the Tory Party aren't interested in compromise and never have been. They've already brought down four Tory Party leaders in their pursuit of the hardest possible Brexit.

Maybot could have got a parliamentary compromise on a softer Brexit after the referendum if she'd tried. It wouldn't have pleased everyone but it would have been acceptable to all but the most hardcore Remainers and hard Brexiteers.
Instead she pushed ahead with prematurely invoking Article 50 before getting agreement across parliament on what kind of Brexit we wanted. And parliament stupidly agreed to back that, for fear of being accused of betraying the referendum vote.
So, having set the clock ticking, she then set down her immovable hard Brexit red lines which never had a chance of commanding a majority in a hung parliament. And since then she's tried to blackmail parliament into voting for a deal they've twice rejected by a record margin, by running down the clock. She's become a national embarrassment. The EU leaders were clearly stunned by her ineptitude at last week's summit, and they sent her packing with her tail between her legs. They simply couldn't believe that she is still hell bent on trying to win an unwinnable vote.

 

It's not about voting to leave for different reasons. Obviously people have all sorts of reasons for voting one way or another.

The point is that in a yes/no referendum people have to know exactly what they are voting for. But what ''leave" meant wasn't defined in the referendum.
So some people could vote leave believing they were voting for No Deal - ie a complete break. Others could vote leave believing that they were voting to end free movement of labour but keep the free market and no customs checks (as Boris and Corbyn both said was possible). Those two things are mutually incompatible but were both counted as the same thing in the referendum. That's a massively loaded vote in favour of Brexit if you count two totally different things as the same.

 

In a selfish way i got what i wanted. For me i couldn't care less about whether we leave or remain, i think there are good points made by both sides and that with compromise and dialogue we could have streamlined the system to a point where the majority of the country would have accepted with its continuation. But we all know politicians aren't capable of this. But what my vote did amongst all the others was to show the house up for what it is, an organisation with utter contempt for the people it is supposed to represent. All over Europe people are fighting back against the establishment, Macron is a busted flush in France, in other countries we are in the throes of civil unrest. People are beginning to realise they can facilitate change if they truly believe in it, the main parties in this country aren't that far off being on the brink, the Torys are hated with a passion ( by me included) and the Labour party is destroying itself from within. Believe it or not me and you probably have a lot in common and want a lot of the same things, we just have different ways of wanting to go about it.

 

Hmm, I'm not so sure. I'm a democratic socialist, not a revolutionary. Revolutions almost always end in tears and/or totalitarian regimes, of left or right. Most of the populist unrest seems to me to be of a distinctly nasty regressive nature. A lot of it is xenophobic if not downright racist. Even when it starts as an expression of genuine grievance it soon gets hijacked by far right neo-Nazis, as in France.

We'll have to agree to differ about our parliament. I don't have your outright cynicism about all politicians. I still believe that most of them are genuinely trying to do what they think is best for the country, even if I disagree with some of them politically. I make an exception for the far right extremists in the Tory Party, whom I believe to be be evil bastards. These are the people driving hard Brexit, for their own selfish financial reasons.

Parliament is not a party conference and MPs are not delegates who are mandated to vote in a particular way by their constituents. They swear an oath of allegiance to the crown, ie to the the country, not to their constituents. So they are obliged to do what they believe is best for the country, regardless of what they think the voters in their area want (even assuming they could get an accurate view of that). And whose views would they follow - just those who voted for them?
This is the problem with referenda - they are totally alien to the way our democracy usually works, so there is a built in mismatch if the referendum vote goes against the majority view in parliament. Nothing is ever simple in politics. It's impossible to represent everyone's views because they are often at odds with each other. Brexit is that dilemma writ large. Yes, there was a narrow majority for Brexit three years ago but that has almost certainly gone now, so why do we base a decision on an outdated vote? In countries that have a tradition of using referenda they invariably have a threshold of 60% or more in favour to change the status quo. No one but us makes major constitutional changes on a simple majority, precisely because opinions can swing, so there has to be a large majority to future-proof the decision.

The fact is that the country is more divided than it's ever been in my lifetime and most of those who are likely to indulge in civil unrest certainly don't represent my views or the views of any of my friends and colleagues.

 

Actually you are right we don't have much in common. You think the system works. I don't. Europe is falling to pieces and we are part of that. Blame the tories all you want, believe me the alternative ain't any better. We are more divided than ever as a society and civil unrest is on the way because politicians don't care, throwing around worthless labels like Nazis and xenophobes because they refuse to accept problems of their doing. Idiots like David Lammy banging on about white privilege, do you know what Steve, i'm sick to the back teeth of it. When civil unrest comes, and it will, you can thank your wonderful members of parliament. They deserve all the stick they get.
I told myself i wouldn't get involved in politics debate because it riles me up and i go off on one. I'm out, only for the sanity of others having to listen to my soap box rant.

 

Al, I never said that I think the system works. It is highly imperfect and outdated. But I think that's more to do with the traditional two party system that we are lumbered with, which is supposed to facilitate strong, effective governments but now keeps producing weak hung parliaments. Both main parties are unholy coalitions of very broad approaches and have become dysfunctional. It's not that politicians don't care - many of them do - but they are stuck in a system that makes compromise and good government difficult.

I never said that everyone who is angry enough to contemplate civil unrest is a xenophobe or nazi. But those movements invariably get hijacked by them. The fact that a disgraceful Nazi like Tommy Robinson is so popular in populist circles confirms my point.
Civil unrest will just create more division. People will get hurt, especially those from immigrant communities who will be scapegoated as though our society's problems are their fault. And the right wing extremists who are driving the Brexit disaster will look on smiling as the ordinary folks tear each other apart. Divide and rule always favours the rich and powerful.