|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 26, 2023 6:38:05 GMT
So if it was inevitable then why was this not Central part of the leave campaign, then the choice would be clear and the options analysed?
Actually, I think I've just answered my own question.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 26, 2023 6:41:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 26, 2023 6:56:40 GMT
Yes, absolutely - it should have been clear what people were voting for. It was our choice to leave both the CU and SM, but that decision was actually taken by Theresa May afterwards. I'm unsure where the pivot towards the Pacific Trade began, but again if that was the vision then that should have been made clear. You can have the aim to go about any of these aims without beginning negotiations. In fact the negotiations probably would have gone smoother, how many times did the EU say that Britain didn't know what it wanted? The decision to leave the SM and CU wasn't made until January 2017: www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/02/dont-be-misled-leaving-the-single-market-and-customs-union-was-a-tory-decisionThis was a full 6 months after the referendum. That makes absolutely no sense at all. OK Johnson could have had a 'plan' - but what you are missing is that he had no authority to implement that 'plan'. At the time he was just a humble backbench MP. With regards to the decision to leave the SM and CU you are wrong - that decision was made by Parliament who rejected remaining in both the SM and CU. If your wish is that any 'plan' drawn up by Johnson should have overruled the wishes of Parliament then I would totally disagree - Parliament should always be sovereign. As it happens I don't think much of the final deal that Parliament did agree to but as that was the only 'plan' they were willing to accept we have to go along with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Apr 26, 2023 7:06:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 26, 2023 7:18:38 GMT
Article 50 was not triggered until March 2017.
And then, with David Davis as Brexit secretary, negotiations began.
Problems started in June 2017 with Theresa May's snap election and Labour unexpectedly gaining seats after pledging more than 50 times to honour the referendum and take us out.
They then retreated to the Blairite pro EU comfort zone and tried to undermine the referendum result by trying to keep us in and they had no mandate to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Apr 26, 2023 7:19:26 GMT
Nothing could be negotiated before A50 was triggered, I didn't say it should be. But I'm clear that we should have had a direction before we did do. Ideally there should have been a clear vision of what leave meant before the referendum.There wasn't. It was led by an egotistical politician who didn't believe in Brexit and didn't think he would win. Yet millions voted for it. So I return to my question, why did so many people vote for something with no plan? We had a plan, which is why the NHS is now better off and it's staff much more rewarded…….   |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 26, 2023 7:49:07 GMT
Article 50 was not triggered until March 2017. And then, with David Davis as Brexit secretary, negotiations began. Problems started in June 2020 with Theresa May's snap election and Labour unexpectedly gaining seats after pledging more than 50 times to honour the referendum and take us out. They then retreated to the Blairite pro EU comfort zone and tried to undermine the referendum result by trying to keep us in and they had no mandate to do so. I think you are wrong there. In June 2020 we had already left the EU, Boris was PM and we were just about to come out of the first lockdown. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 26, 2023 7:51:59 GMT
It was always quite clear we would be leaving the single market with a leave vote . Not true. Many leavers actually did not advocate leaving the single market. As pointed out, that decision was not taken until January 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 26, 2023 7:55:09 GMT
Yes, absolutely - it should have been clear what people were voting for. It was our choice to leave both the CU and SM, but that decision was actually taken by Theresa May afterwards. I'm unsure where the pivot towards the Pacific Trade began, but again if that was the vision then that should have been made clear. You can have the aim to go about any of these aims without beginning negotiations. In fact the negotiations probably would have gone smoother, how many times did the EU say that Britain didn't know what it wanted? The decision to leave the SM and CU wasn't made until January 2017: www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/02/dont-be-misled-leaving-the-single-market-and-customs-union-was-a-tory-decisionThis was a full 6 months after the referendum. In 1975 I can recall no clear plan of what we were voting for if we voted to stay in the EEC. It was a living process, what was on teh cards was rarely mentioned other than it would be better for us all. In the end it has come down to control. Do we wish to be controlled by Westminster, with all its faults, infighting and self serving or by the EU with the same level of faults, infighting and self serving happening almost out of sight. Not much of a choice but the preference is clear. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 26, 2023 8:17:55 GMT
Sorry, using phone and predictive text sometimes catches me out.
June 2017 election, it went badly for Theresa May, left the Tories without a majority and the Commons controlled by remoaners who went back on their word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Apr 26, 2023 8:40:40 GMT
It was always quite clear we would be leaving the single market with a leave vote . Not true. Many leavers actually did not advocate leaving the single market. As pointed out, that decision was not taken until January 2017. Seemed true enough to me . Maybe you were not paying attention . www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZmlGa51W4 |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 26, 2023 9:29:31 GMT
No it wasn't, it was a possible destination. Your side lost sunshine. You make yourself look like a fosssil. When exactly are you going to get over the fact that not enough morons supported remain? |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 26, 2023 9:51:27 GMT
No it wasn't, it was a possible destination. Yes it was. Anything else is what other national democracies around the world do on a daily, monthly, yearly basis. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Apr 26, 2023 10:58:16 GMT
No it wasn't, it was a possible destination. Your side lost sunshine. You make yourself look like a fosssil. When exactly are you going to get over the fact that not enough morons supported remain? I wasn’t aware in a democracy when one side loses they have to give up trying to make their view more popular than the side they lost too? I don’t think calling people who voted remain and are sticking to their guns morons is fair. Andrew is allowed his opinion just as much as you are and you should both be free of childish namecalling, ya know? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 26, 2023 11:49:16 GMT
Your side lost sunshine. You make yourself look like a fosssil. When exactly are you going to get over the fact that not enough morons supported remain? I wasn’t aware in a democracy when one side loses they have to give up trying to make their view more popular than the side they lost too? I don’t think calling people who voted remain and are sticking to their guns morons is fair. Andrew is allowed his opinion just as much as you are and you should both be free of childish namecalling, ya know? I agree, however in a democracy when a decision is made it is incumbent on both winners and losers to follow whatever has been decided and not try and block and overturn the decision made. This is where the problem lies. The perception is that those who did not like the decision are actively working not just to change it but to ensure that it will not work in any meaningful way. |
|
