Exit from Brexit

Yes, I know he said he'd vote remain if he had his time again, but not because he now believes Brexit would be bad for the UK, but because of the nastiness and self serving of some mostlyharmless.

Why varian? Why is it most likely that those who did consider the Irish border voted remain? Does this have something to do with your view that those who voted remain are on a higher moral and intellectual plain?

I'm surprised that Leavers, having voted for a vast and radical change which will adversely affect many people's lives and which, by our own government's calculations alone (not to mention most economists and at home and internationally), will make our country poorer, think that Remainers should sit back passively and accept such a change. And be amazed that people who really, really, didn't want to leave the EU should fight very hard to reverse the decision and get rather cross with those who can give no evidence that it will improve people's lives in any way.

I don't have a problem with those who want to fight for anything they believe in Mazie but I do have a problem when one of the tactics they use is to insult those who disagree with them.

There's no evidence that Brexit will improve people's lives and no evidence to the contrary. There are politicians, economists and heads of business who say it will be a disaster and those who say it will be a positive outcome.

We don't know do we and wont know until we actually leave. I believe our future will be brighter when we're not shackled to the EU and remainers believe the opposite.

Our country would have been better served if everyone worked together for the best deal, rather than fight among ourselves.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the EU is rubbing its hands with glee, and holding on to the 'divide and conquer' rule.

Our country would have been better served if everyone worked together for the best deal, rather than fight among ourselves.

That is one of the most ridiculous of Leaver statements.

It is so ridiculous I don't know where to start with detailing its ridiculousness.

I believe our lives have been improved since we joined the EU! Great improvements with working conditions, hours etc. Improved standards for food and more openess as to where things come from. We have all sorts of improved regulations for goods and our transport has been improved and so it continues to mobile phone charges when we are on holiday.
Can anyone ensure that we will continue to enjoy these rights etc - certainly many of the leading remainders want less red tape which in reality means taking away many of these rights.

I joined "Open Britain" originally set to encourage a harmonious Brexit. However as time has progressed it has become clear that the best option for the country (not the Tory party or the Labour party) is to accept that we should remain if the EU. A Hard Brexit or No Deal would be a disaster and a Soft Brexit (Norway) option would incur most of the costs with no say. Therefore any Brexit is bad for the country. The only way to achieve a no Brexit is to go for a Public Vote (yes a referendum rerun) with the facts properly understood and hope wiser counsel prevails.

Below is the text of my letter to my MP putting the case for a Public Vote.

^I am writing to ask to you to use your good offices to support the campaign for a Public Vote on the final outcome of the Brexit Negotiations no matter the result; the simple choice should be accept the deal or remain in the EU. This is because the original referendum was seriously flawed and not properly understood by many of us who voted either Remain or Leave.

Since June 2016 a lot has happened. The situation regarding EU membership has become clearer and a significant number of voters now have a better idea of what they voted for. Many younger voters who were too young to vote in 2016 should now have a say, it is their future. A small number of older voters have sadly passed away. Opinion now may be in favour of staying in the EU.

It is generally accepted that leaving the EU will have an adverse effect on the economy. Manufacturing, Health, research and other areas depend on the free movement of people and goods in Europe. The pound sterling has already decreased in value relative to other currencies since 2016.

Brexiteers are hostile to the idea of a Public Vote simply because their true colours have come to light over the last two years and they know it is possible the people given another say may choose to stay in the EU. Nobody, aside from Lord Sugar, has openly said that the Leave Campaign lied to the people, some of whom now feel cheated. It is argued that those of us who are anti Brexit should just accept the situation. This assumes that a coming back would be possible under similar terms to those we have now. A general election gives the people a chance to change government, leaving the EU is not so easily back tracked in the cold light of experience.

The Irish Border Issue has yet to be clarified and risks undermining the peace that has been in place since the Good Friday Agreement. After WW1 there was just over twenty years of peace before WW2 broke out. Since WW2 there has been over 70 years of peace in Europe. The ugliness of nationalism has at times given a hint of what could happen without European Unity.

Brexit has polarised national politics giving a harder Right government and a harder Left opposition with little middle ground which is where the majority of the electorate belongs. Momentum is further trying to increase its influence over Labour by inviting the public to take part in a Public Vote Poll providing they join Momentum They will claim an increased, albeit passive, membership driving Labour further left and even less likely to be elected.

The referendum should never have taken place, it did and the result was inconclusive. The only democratic way to determine the future of the country is to have a Public Vote with the facts much better understood. A democracy after all ceases to be a democracy if it cannot change its mind. To force a Brexit for the sake of Tory dogma is both damaging and undemocratic. The public did not vote for such a Brexit.^

Recent referral of Aaron Banks to the NCA could be means of the Government looking for an escape clause from Brexit. Lord Sugar has suggested that some leading Brexiteers should be prosecuted for lying to the public. You could also argue that Theresa May should be sanctioned for bribing the DUP with Tax Payers' money.

The whole scenario just makes me so sad and so angry.

No not just leavers Mazie, I know several remainers who feel the same way; Mr. S. for one.

Feel the same way about what, smileless?

About the country being better served if everyone worked together rather than fighting among ourselves Maizie. You think that a ridiculous Leaver statement, it's common sense to me and for some remainers.

MaizieD- what is ridiculous about our parliamentarians working together to reach a good deal for our UK.

I for one find all the current back biting and infighting an embarrassment to the H of P.

There was a vote, there was a result!!

By the way I have not seen any comments in any of these Brexit threads about the amount of money the Leave Campaign spent on leaflets put through every door, which I believe came from our taxes (the government doesn't have its own money) The Remain Campaign spent more money than the Leave campaign and still could not secure the result they wanted.

Can someone explain to me, a dim, uneducated homophobic brexiteer, the difference between 'A Peoples Vote' and 'A Referendum'?! In my brexiteer ignorance, I bought they were one and the same, but in using two different names, they are, presumably, two different things?!!

nigglynellie - same thing just "dressed up" to try and make people think it is different.

Varian, for your information, the editorship of that once "leavers paper", the Daily Mail was recently taken over by the former editor of the Sunday Mail, a definite Anti-Brexit editor.
So do not now quote it as a "Leavers" paper.
I think perhaps you distorted the facts because you are so fixated in your cause.

Granny Gravy, to add to your point about expenditure,
did not the Govnt spend circa £10 million of our money on that?
And where is the equivalent furore about that non national George Soros funding the remainers cause?

stree
Let's also not forget Goldman Sacks, the bank that advised Greece on how to hide their debt prior to them joining the euro. Look how that turned out
What's worse it's frightening how many senior people working/ advising are ex Goldman Sacks people including our own governor of the Bank of England.
I've been reading up on this stuff for years, that's why I can't wait for my wonderful country to leave the cesspit that is the eu.
Warning: it's bad for your blood pressure once you understand what's going on

By the way I have not seen any comments in any of these Brexit threads about the amount of money the Leave Campaign spent on leaflets put through every door, which I believe came from our taxes

The leaflets put through our doors were a pathetic attempt by the then government to detail the pros and cons of leaving or remaining in the EU. I completely agree that it was a waste of money as it was poorly thought out and very sketchy. Had the government been really serious about giving information to the public they would/should have produced a far larger and more detailed document, similar to that produced by the Scottish Executive prior to the Independence referendum) which not only set out the alternatives but actually contained a detailed plan of how independence would be achieved. The history of the last 2 years has clearly demonstrated the folly of having no plan as competing views of what sort of Brexit should be worked for has caused chaos in the government and fear and uncertainty in the community at large.

The matter of how much money each 'side' spent is not the issue at the moment. The issue is the fact that sections of the leave campaigns broke Electoral law and there is now a huge question mark over the source of the funds given to Leave campaigns by the donor of of the largest ever sum of money given to a political cause.

Leavers did try to refer Remain campaigns to the Electoral Comission but the Commission, having examined them, concluded that no electoral law was broken by these campaigns and there was no case to answer.

On the question of the effectiveness of the money spent on both sides, I have yet to hear that any Remain campaigns used companies such as Cambridge Analytica which used illegally obtained data on social media to specifically target ads at people who might be wavering and who might be particularly susceptible to their scaremongering (and untrue) message. The point of this is that only the targeted individuals saw these ads and so the Remain campaigns had no opportunity to rebutt the claims made in them. This is not how our democratic process should work. Everything that is being said by both sides in a campaign should be available for everyone to see and judge on its merits.

Eaxamples of the 'dark adverts' can be seen on this twitter thread (and a parliamentary select committee also published many of them)

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1059068463933743104.html

I would hope that fairminded posters would take the trouble to read the thread and judge for themselves whether these adverts were decent and truthful or not.

Despite the assertions of many people that they weren't susceptible to advertising such claims make a nonsense of the fact that every company spends millions every year on advertising. They wouldn't waste their money if they didn't think advertising had any effect.

It cannot be sheer coincidence that the most intense 'dark ads' activity was carried out just prior to the referendum date (including on the days when a moratorium on all campaigning was observed because of Jo Cox's murder) and that polls which had been showing a pretty constant advantage to ''remain suddenly swung in favour of Leave (see the graphic above)

(the government doesn't have its own money)

Well, you know my views on that. I think you are mistaken in this belief as it is the government which issues money.

the difference between 'A Peoples Vote' and 'A Referendum'?

There is no difference, nellie, but I would have thought it was obvious that as the government has been droning on about Brexit being 'the will of the people' ( a very scary phrase in itself with its association with the Nazi regime) that branding a fresh plebiscite as a 'People's Vote' associates the two ideas more closely.

that's why I can't wait for my wonderful country to leave the cesspit that is the eu.

I suppose you can't see that our 'wonderful country' is a cesspit too, Petra? Out of the frying pan into the fire, really....

I checked your link, and apart from it being onesided, which was of course it`s purpose, none of the links to the adds were live..........just your comment showing.

A “no deal safety net unit” is being rushed through by Scotland Yard at a cost of more than £2.4m after police chiefs warned the home secretary that losing EU tools would make it harder to monitor the movements of sex offenders or terrorist suspects, according to internal police documents.

The initial cost to the taxpayer was subsequently inflated by £250,000 to allow the new unit to rent an office near parliament after the Metropolitan police said it did not have the space given the large size of the team.

Discussions are ongoing about the extent of the running costs to the taxpayer should the UK crash out in March.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/05/brexit-metropolitan-police-rush-set-up-no-deal-safety-net-unit

Of course a few million pounds is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the total cost of brexit so far.

Back in June the Centre for European Reform estimated that the UK economy was 2.1 per cent smaller as a result of the vote to leave the EU. The knock-on hit to the public finances was £23 billion per annum – or £440 million a week.

www.cer.eu/insights/whats-cost-brexit-so-far

Varian what do you expect if your information source is the Grauniad?
What did the Telegraph say?

What comment?

I can't think why you should think the links to the ads should be live.

The ads are taken from those published by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Committee.

The specific ones displayed on the twitter thread are on this link:

www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/culture-media-and-sport/Fake_news_evidence/Vote-Leave-50-Million-Ads.pdf

A list (with links) of all the ads supplied to the Committee by Facebook is here:

www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/culture-media-and-sport/Fake_news_evidence/Ads-supplied-by-Facebook-to-the-DCMS-Committee.pdf

The Committee's full interim report on "Disinformation and‘fake news’" is here:

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/363/363.pdf

My last post is in response to stree of course.

To put some of those costs into perspective, here are some random costs collated in 2013..........Out of date yes, but nevertheless you will get the ghist.

Costs.
Flytipping, cost to UK taxpayers is £60 million a year
Cleaning chewing gum from pavements is costing £60 million per year
Alcohol harm is estimated to cost the NHS around £3.5 billion annually.
The Home Office estimates that each domestic abuse murder costs the country just over £1 million and totals £112 million per annum.
Unused prescription medicines cost the NHS in the UK an estimated £300million every year.
Brits are wasting a whopping £558 million each year on unused gym memberships, with one in ten admitting they haven’t actually visited their gym for twelve months.
House of Lords per annum, just under £68 million

So the Scotland Yard costs by comparison are minimal.

Unlike the Guardian, the Telegraph puts up a paywall on its website. If you know what the Telegraph says about this please tell us.

It would not surprise me if the Telegraph has not reported ity as it does not suit its extreme right wing brexit agenda.