Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Deleted member 21784]

17.4 million people voted leave because they believed, without evidence, a new law was coming in to investigate offshore tax avoidance?

Got ya – it all makes perfect sense now.

Or you could look at it correctly and notice the driving forces behind brexit like Jacob ree mogg etc are euro sceptic because they are set to have to declare their earnings and pay tax.. costing them money

Simple really.

 

[patricks148]

Or you could look at it correctly and notice the driving forces behind brexit like Jacob ree mogg etc are euro sceptic because they are set to have to declare their earnings and pay tax.. costing them money

Simple really.

not forgetting the person behind UKIP and The Brexit Party

 

[SocketRocket]

Or you could look at it correctly and notice the driving forces behind brexit like Jacob ree mogg etc are euro sceptic because they are set to have to declare their earnings and pay tax.. costing them money

Simple really.

Don't forget David Ike's Lizard people, they made us vote for Brexit but seem to have got away with it, bet they have some nice warm offshore rocks to bask on.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Or you could look at it correctly and notice the driving forces behind brexit like Jacob ree mogg etc are euro sceptic because they are set to have to declare their earnings and pay tax.. costing them money

Simple really.

He’s told you that personally; or just a wild guess that suits your agenda?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Throughout this debate I have seen frequent references to Leave voters not knowing what form of Leave they were voting for and this may well be true.

However, what I have not seen is a corresponding lack of certainty over Remain voters.

Some may well have been voting for the then status quo.

Others may have wanted to remain within the EU as a trading bloc but with a changed relationship as initially pursued by Cameron.

Finally there would undoubtedly have been some who were not only happy to Remain but were also willing to accept the increased federalism proposed by some in Europe.

I know which was my preference but I very much doubt that all my fellow Remain voters had thought it through any more than their Leave counterparts and yet it appears to be only the latter group whose motives have been questioned.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Throughout this debate I have seen frequent references to Leave voters not knowing what form of Leave they were voting for and this may well be true.

However, what I have not seen is a corresponding lack of certainty over Remain voters.

Some may well have been voting for the then status quo.

Others may have wanted to remain within the EU as a trading bloc but with a changed relationship as initially pursued by Cameron.

Finally there would undoubtedly have been some who were not only happy to Remain but were also willing to accept the increased federalism proposed by some in Europe.

I know which was my preference but I very much doubt that all my fellow Remain voters had thought it through any more than their Leave counterparts and yet it appears to be only the latter group whose motives have been questioned.

Can I nominate this for the most honest post in this thread?

 

[IanM]

Can I nominate this for the most honest post in this thread?

Agreed.... voters on both sides had variety of views, priorities and motivations. I always think that folk are on dodgy ground telling someone else what they believe.

 

[Hobbit]

Throughout this debate I have seen frequent references to Leave voters not knowing what form of Leave they were voting for and this may well be true.

However, what I have not seen is a corresponding lack of certainty over Remain voters.

Some may well have been voting for the then status quo.

Others may have wanted to remain within the EU as a trading bloc but with a changed relationship as initially pursued by Cameron.

Finally there would undoubtedly have been some who were not only happy to Remain but were also willing to accept the increased federalism proposed by some in Europe.

I know which was my preference but I very much doubt that all my fellow Remain voters had thought it through any more than their Leave counterparts and yet it appears to be only the latter group whose motives have been questioned.

Could I take it a step further. I'd suggest that the vast majority of those saying Leave voters don't know what version of Leave they wanted has actually been Remain voters. And that the vast majority of those asking the questions have done so to discredit or in some way split the Leave vote.

Of the Leave voters I've asked, each one has had their version of Leave, just as Remainers have had their version of Remain.

Just as some have suggested a second vote with the options being Leave with a deal, Leave with No Deal or Remain, perhaps the Remain vote should also be split into those who want the status quo, those that wanted a return to a trading bloc(me) or those that want even greater integration.

Sounds very fair to me.

 

[IanM]

Or you could look at it correctly and notice the driving forces behind brexit like Jacob ree mogg etc are euro sceptic because they are set to have to declare their earnings and pay tax.. costing them money

Simple really.

It is simple.. he believes that the Government of this country should be in this country. I know that is weird to Federalists, but it is true!

 

[Blue in Munich]

Could I take it a step further. I'd suggest that the vast majority of those saying Leave voters don't know what version of Leave they wanted has actually been Remain voters. And that the vast majority of those asking the questions have done so to discredit or in some way split the Leave vote.

Of the Leave voters I've asked, each one has had their version of Leave, just as Remainers have had their version of Remain.

Just as some have suggested a second vote with the options being Leave with a deal, Leave with No Deal or Remain, perhaps the Remain vote should also be split into those who want the status quo, those that wanted a return to a trading bloc(me) or those that want even greater integration.

Sounds very fair to me.

Bugger; another nominee for most honest post. We’ll have to have a referendum to decide the winner... 🤔

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Throughout this debate I have seen frequent references to Leave voters not knowing what form of Leave they were voting for and this may well be true.

However, what I have not seen is a corresponding lack of certainty over Remain voters.

Some may well have been voting for the then status quo.

Others may have wanted to remain within the EU as a trading bloc but with a changed relationship as initially pursued by Cameron.

Finally there would undoubtedly have been some who were not only happy to Remain but were also willing to accept the increased federalism proposed by some in Europe.

I know which was my preference but I very much doubt that all my fellow Remain voters had thought it through any more than their Leave counterparts and yet it appears to be only the latter group whose motives have been questioned.

I get your point, but it’s irrelevant and I don’t mean that disrespectfully, no part of the Remain Campaign was really based on what our future relationship would look like, if anything it was the scaremongering of the Leave Campaign that paid more attention to that element, the basic message from the Remain side was we were better of staying regardless.
I would imagine if in 20-30 years there was a Referendum to rejoin, the focus would be more about what sort of relationship we would want and the majority of opposition would be simply focussed on staying out regardless.

If we’d voted to remain we may of seen the rise of an Anti-european Party that produced a full agenda rather than having a single focus and the main Parties may of seen the odd fuss in Parliament above EU legislation.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

It is simple.. he believes that the Government of this country should be in this country. I know that is weird to Federalists, but it is true!

In this country with offshore banking and tax avoiding schemes and you have nailed it.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I get your point, but it’s irrelevant and I don’t mean that disrespectfully, no part of the Remain Campaign was really based on what our future relationship would look like, if anything it was the scaremongering of the Leave Campaign that paid more attention to that element, the basic message from the Remain side was we were better of staying regardless.
I would imagine if in 20-30 years there was a Referendum to rejoin, the focus would be more about what sort of relationship we would want and the majority of opposition would be simply focussed on staying out regardless.

If we’d voted to remain we may of seen the rise of an Anti-european Party that produced a full agenda rather than having a single focus and the main Parties may of seen the odd fuss in Parliament above EU legislation.

Not certain that it's irrelevant.

After all should there be some form of second public consultation, referendum or GE surely we need to at least attempt to ensure that whichever way people choose to vote they are more certain of their motives.

 

[drdel]

I can tell you why I voted to leave...

The EU has always seen the UK as a rogue, unhappy member and thus we've never been at the 'centre' within the Brussels cliche. As a consequence they are happily pursuing their dream and expected and put up with the UK moaning just to keep the cash rolling in.

The UK always sought to fully implement EU requirements even though, other members (our competitors) rarely bother, leading in workers rights and environmental implementation.

As 'enlargement' has primarily brought in the Eastern nations massive cash flows have gone east: this has been funded by massive and unsustainable debt based on non-existent growth. Brussels has plans to charge members more for 'central' growth and the UK would be expected to increase contributions disproportionately.

The UK 'concessions' will come under more and more pressure (see Germany) as the 'taker members' debt can't be met.

World trade/growth is ignoring Europe which means investments will follow and the UK would be disadvantaged.

The EU is too slow to react and lacks agility in the modern world.

UK is expected to meet a large proportion of defence, intelligence and services because the EU 'thinks' the UK is rich.

I'll stop there, but could go on !!!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Not certain that it's irrelevant.

After all should there be some form of second public consultation, referendum or GE surely we need to at least attempt to ensure that whichever way people choose to vote they are more certain of their motives.

Absolutely, it wouldn’t be irrelevant if we had (hopefully not for me) a second referendum.
But as we are not at that stage those consultations are not required.

 

[IanM]

Bugger; another nominee for most honest post. We’ll have to have a referendum to decide the winner... 🤔

Silly Billy....that will split the Remain vote and ooooooooooooooooooooooops!

 

[IanM]

In this country with offshore banking and tax avoiding schemes and you have nailed it.

Yes. No lover of free trade are you? Avoidance of tax is illegal. As you know.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I can tell you why I voted to leave...

The EU has always seen the UK as a rogue, unhappy member and thus we've never been at the 'centre' within the Brussels cliche. As a consequence they are happily pursuing their dream and expected and put up with the UK moaning just to keep the cash rolling in.

The UK always sought to fully implement EU requirements even though, other members (our competitors) rarely bother, leading in workers rights and environmental implementation.

As 'enlargement' has primarily brought in the Eastern nations massive cash flows have gone east: this has been funded by massive and unsustainable debt based on non-existent growth. Brussels has plans to charge members more for 'central' growth and the UK would be expected to increase contributions disproportionately.

The UK 'concessions' will come under more and more pressure (see Germany) as the 'taker members' debt can't be met.

World trade/growth is ignoring Europe which means investments will follow and the UK would be disadvantaged.

The EU is too slow to react and lacks agility in the modern world.

UK is expected to meet a large proportion of defence, intelligence and services because the EU 'thinks' the UK is rich.

I'll stop there, but could go on !!!

A lot of my main objections are neatly, and far more eruditely, explained than I would have managed.

I have no huge issue with a trading bloc, the EHIC card is something that shows the good of the system but the debt is my biggest concern.

Those that voted leave are constantly being told they’ve stolen the future of the youth. By voting leave, I’ve actually damaged my present as the investments I do have are slumping, but I’ve done so because I believe, rightly or wrongly, it is in the best long term interests of the country and of the younger generation who will be saddled with this debt long after I’ve gone. The insults from some Remain voters who have no idea why I voted the way I did but choose to put their own slant on it as being the greed of the older generation is inexcusable given my circumstances.

 

[Pro Zach]

Or you could look at it correctly and notice the driving forces behind brexit like Jacob ree mogg etc are euro sceptic because they are set to have to declare their earnings and pay tax.. costing them money

Simple really.

This is not looking at it correctly. It is not rational.

Premise 1: there is an EU law coming in.

Premise 2: this law will cost JRM money.

Conclusion: JRM wants to leave the EU because of this.

Is premise 1 true? Do you have evidence for it? Have you read it? If it is true does it make premise 2 true? Can you show that this law will actually cost JRM money?

If both are true, is the conclusion true? The answer is no.

Even if we could prove JRM will save money because of Brexit this still wouldn’t show that is why he wants to leave. It would remain one possibility out of many other possibilities.

 

[SocketRocket]

Not certain that it's irrelevant.

After all should there be some form of second public consultation, referendum or GE surely we need to at least attempt to ensure that whichever way people choose to vote they are more certain of their motives.

My opinion is that there is too much emphasise on why people voted the way they did and what may have influenced their decision. When we vote in any National Poll their will always be campaigns from the interested parties to influence our voting decisions, these will include positive and negative spin and claims that are questionable in their honesty. It is up to the individual to educate themselves and come to a decision, after the votes are counted it's no good people suggesting those that had a different view were wrong in their decision or even too stupid to be allowed a vote. Its never perfect but it's the best we have.
I do have concerns though, the new way of dragging decisions through the courts to question political outcomes that are not in line with the will of some influential people is going to be fairly normal practice.