Analysis of Brexit

So this is what Brexit looks like from an outside perspective.

-Country voted to leave
-EU doesn't want anyone to leave b/c that would set a precident for nations leaving the union
-Progressive (liberals) in Britain want to remain in the EU
-The result of the Brexit negotiations resulted in a horrible deal for Britain thus making leaving the EU VERY distasteful if not painful - probably to make an example.
-Negotiations may have been sabotaged by both parties (EU and progressives in Britain)
-Terrible exit package is resulting in a call for a new "Brexit" vote to see if people still want to leave after seeing what may lie ahead
-Possible new vote to continue Brexit or remain


From the outside this really looks like "we didn't like the way the first vote went, so we will drag our feet, not do our job(s) and see if we can't make people loose heart/interest in this scheme". I'm not knocking Britain or the people there (even the politicians) as we seem to have people of the same mindset in the states - they won't accept election results but when the shoe is on the other foot, they are vicious if there is any questioning or dissension (to the point of pushing law suits).

It really shows their true colors doesn't it.

Is that a fair analysis of what is going on? I'm sure there are more details involved, I know there are major issues with the financial markets, residency (for both EU and GB citizens), border w/n Ireland and a number of other things. But overall, what I outlined seems an apt description. Can anyone comment on this?

No personal interest at all but I agree with your assessment to a T and think the Brits should tell all to F# off and take a hard exit. Give the EU the middle finger.

We live in a Connocracy not a Democracy! If the UK electorate voted to LEAVE then how in democracy can REMAIN be one of the options on a 2nd referendum!

We had BREXIT, then it moved to FAKEXIT and now its moving towards REMAINIT! How is this possible if the UK voted to LEAVE.


Lots of analysis here since well before referendum

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The British people have been promised a land of milk and honey by populist politicians that were more interested in their own careers than the welfare of a nation. They offered simple solutions for complex problems in a globalized world. It's not surprising that the result now annoys everybody.

At the time of the referendum, nobody seemed to know what a Brexit actually involves. Even today, not all the details and impacts are known or fully understood. And Cameron did what? Leave it up to the people to decide by means of a referendum? Yeah, right...

I usually don't post in political threads, but I just had to get this off my chest.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The British people have been promised a land of milk and honey by populist politicians that were more interested in their own careers than the welfare of a nation. They offered simple solutions for complex problems in a globalized world. It's not surprising that the result now annoys everybody.

At the time of the referendum, nobody seemed to know what a Brexit actually involves. Even today, not all the details and impacts are known or fully understood. And Cameron did what? Leave it up to the people to decide by means of a referendum? Yeah, right...

I usually don't post in political threads, but I just had to get this off my chest.

I have to call BS on the statement that they didn't know what a Brexit plan would entail/involve - maybe there were some "commoners" who didn't understand but I remember about 6+ months of indepth, detailed analysis of what would have to be worked out, how much of a headache it would be and they even set the stage for a possible no-deal due to the EU imposing very difficult terms.

IMHO, the EU was thinking far ahead before the vote even took place and they placed their minions in Britain to "set the stage" for what is happening now, just in case people voted YES for Brexit. Now that it has come true, I'm hearing all those lines that were spoken ~2-3 years ago now coming out of the politicians and newscasters/pundits trying to push for another vote.

It was Russian meddling to destabilise the EU! The media said so.

The EU is nothing more than a failing pyramid scheme, as it has always been, with the richer states bringing in poorer ones to asset strip them, enriching their own coffers and the western corporations getting the newly privatised services in those poorer states to enable them to at least look like they can pay off the loans!

The idea that there could ever be any harmony in such a super state, where huge gulfs exist between the lives of those in the richer members and those in the poorer ones, is laughable and was always going to fail.

What is really scaring the EU crowd is the removal of £Billions from the EU money-go-round as the UK withdraws. Thus, we see the weekly Brexit scare stories that have been emerging from day one after the vote. Yes, of course those EU dictators are going to try and punish us, as we have seen already, and this will be even more apparent if they reversed the decision to keep us in.
Why we just can't walk away with a clean break policy I do not know.

As a nation we need to have full control of our own critical infrastructure, policy making and destiny, not selling it off to faceless mandarins elsewhere or relying on others to keep the country going, which is the level of control that was handed to the EU a long time ago.

I remember the "memo" that was fairly recently declassified, written by some faceless whitehall civil servant to the government at the time we were lied into voting to join the EU, warning them to keep secret the full details and long term plans. In other words, they knew the long term plans when we joined but lied to the people of the UK as support would just not have been there to get us in. It is this lying that I resent the most.

So, the exit deal. Yes, it's a mess, but is anybody really so surprised by this? At least once out we can make changes under UK law, to suit the UK, not those in the bowels of Brussels.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I'm not so sure about that, as it seems that some politicians are only recently becoming aware of some of the downsides:

Has nobody told Dominic Raab that Britain is an island?

n July 2016, on the eve of his appointment as secretary of state for Brexit, David Davis predicted that the whole thing would be a doddle (...)

Within a year, Davis had changed his tune. It was complicated, he conceded. In June 2017, he told an audience of business leaders that the intricacies of the negotiations “make the Nasa moonshot look quite simple. In July 2018, Davis resigned.

I doubt that "average joe" had an understanding of the full extent of what Brexit means back in 2016. And he isn't even to blame for that. It just seems like the whole Brexit thing has been presented like a "walk in the park" and that's simply not true.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I'm not so sure about that, as it seems that some politicians are only recently becoming aware of some of the downsides:

Has nobody told Dominic Raab that Britain is an island?

n July 2016, on the eve of his appointment as secretary of state for Brexit, David Davis predicted that the whole thing would be a doddle (...)

Within a year, Davis had changed his tune. It was complicated, he conceded. In June 2017, he told an audience of business leaders that the intricacies of the negotiations “make the Nasa moonshot look quite simple. In July 2018, Davis resigned.

I doubt that "average joe" had an understanding of the full extent of what Brexit means back in 2016. And he isn't even to blame for that. It just seems like the whole Brexit thing has been presented like a "walk in the park" and that's simply not true.

Well if the politicians didn't know then they weren't reading the Guardian or watching the BBC (or even listening to US news, especially NPR..). I'm sure there are a lot of "common people" that didn't understand all that was involved and I'm sure that type of thing is always minimized by the people pushing for it, though I know the "remainers" were sure ringing their bell.

I've listened to many hours of Brexit coverage over the last few days and all they talk about is the problems, I don't think I've heard more than one or two possible suggestions on ways to fix the issue, compromises or anything. It seems like an all out media blitz to highlight the negatives and what they are making out to be "impossibilities" of the process. I'm not familiar with the politicians there or the parties so much, but they seem to have nothing but people who want a new vote or to remain on the programs. I would think they would have people on discussing possible solutions or at least how they will deal with tough issues or how they will make a no-deal work. But nope, charging full speed ahead to pushing for a new vote.

I think the EU is afraid that Britain will make a giant success of leaving the EU, their economy will boom, national pride will take off, immigration will be tightened up, ridiculous laws will be overturned and not passed, etc. All of this would make countries like Hungary, Poland, Austria and Italy scratch their heads and start to ask themselves "why are we in the EU again??".. That is what makes the EU afraid.

The EU wants Britain to remain a vassal state and they will do it either by keeping them in the EU or by making a horrible deal, which is why a no-deal may be the best step forward.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: DigginFoTroof
At the time of the referendum, nobody seemed to know what a Brexit actually involves.

Correct. So what did people do? They took the simplistic view, and voted to leave:
a) because they don't want Polish people living on their street
b) because it would show the Germans, French and Spanish that we can get along fine without them.

Well, here we are two years down the line, and suddenly immigration is no longer a problem. I haven't heard the word mentioned for the last year and a half. And we continue to buy German cars and French houses, and we all go to Spain on holiday three times a year.

It's all very confusing. I think that the Government has wisely taken the pragmatic view that we are better off having a positive relationship with our near neighbours than we are isolating ourselves completely from them. Not least, of course, when 45 percent of our exports go there, and when whole industries depend on employable European staff to exist.

originally posted by: jeep3r

I doubt that "average joe" had an understanding of the full extent of what Brexit means back in 2016. And he isn't even to blame for that. It just seems like the whole Brexit thing has been presented like a "walk in the park" and that's simply not true.

I dont care if we have to crawl out naked on our bare hands and knees, as long

as we get OUT.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I think the EU is afraid that Britain will make a giant success of leaving the EU, their economy will boom, national pride will take off, immigration will be tightened up, ridiculous laws will be overturned and not passed, etc. All of this would make countries like Hungary, Poland, Austria and Italy scratch their heads and start to ask themselves "why are we in the EU again??".. That is what makes the EU afraid.

Thats it in a nutshell ...... And the politician charged with leading us out of

the EU was a remainer till she saw her opportunity of fulfilling her ambition.

How is it possible for a remainer to change to a leaver overnight????

The EU wants Britain to remain a vassal state and they will do it either by keeping them in the EU or by making a horrible deal, which is why a no-deal may be the best step forward.

EXACTLY

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
So this is what Brexit looks like from an outside perspective.

From the outside this really looks like "we didn't like the way the first vote went, so we will drag our feet, not do our job(s) and see if we can't make people loose heart/interest in this scheme"

Your own personal perspective because I can assure you that a large number of people in foreign countries see it completely different.

-Country voted to leave
-EU doesn't want anyone to leave b/c that would set a precident for nations leaving the union
-Progressive (liberals) in Britain want to remain in the EU
-The result of the Brexit negotiations resulted in a horrible deal for Britain thus making leaving the EU VERY distasteful if not painful - probably to make an example.
-Negotiations may have been sabotaged by both parties (EU and progressives in Britain)
-Terrible exit package is resulting in a call for a new "Brexit" vote to see if people still want to leave after seeing what may lie ahead
-Possible new vote to continue Brexit or remain

I'm not knocking Britain or the people there (even the politicians) as we seem to have people of the same mindset in the states - they won't accept election results but when the shoe is on the other foot, they are vicious if there is any questioning or dissension (to the point of pushing law suits).

It really shows their true colors doesn't it.

Is that a fair analysis of what is going on? I'm sure there are more details involved, I know there are major issues with the financial markets, residency (for both EU and GB citizens), border w/n Ireland and a number of other things. But overall, what I outlined seems an apt description. Can anyone comment on this?

Nope, not fair at all. The European Union is a package deal which is the same for all members. If you chose to leave you cannot cherry pick what you want, chose certain aspects and leave others, it doesn't work like that. Most members dislike certain aspects of the EU but as the whole package actually benefits them more, they accept it. You are either part of the club or you are not. You accept the four pillars of free movement, or you are an outside third country that obviously cannot expect the same benefits as members of the club. It's pretty simple to understand.

Also, it was the UK who created and proposed all the laws and rules it now wants to break, for example: it was the UK created and proposed the single market and all its rules in 1988, it was the UK who proposed to accept ex Soviet countries like Poland in 1992, etc. I can link evidence if you wish.

The 2016 referendum was the most undemocratic vote the UK has ever seen. Now most people know why leading Brexiteers pushed for it and even broke electoral law to achieve it: to lower food standards, to get chlorinated chicken over here and to sell the NHS, to kill the NHS completely. -- LINK --

originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale

Well, here we are two years down the line, and suddenly immigration is no longer a problem. I haven't heard the word mentioned for the last year and a half. And we continue to buy German cars and French houses, and we all go to Spain on holiday three times a year.

Immigration was NEVER the issue ....... although a lot of people used it

to call the Brits racists.

We wished to control our immigration, and not have open borders as Merkle

was foisting on ALL EU members.

It's all very confusing. I think that the Government has wisely taken the pragmatic view that we are better off having a positive relationship with our near neighbours than we are isolating ourselves completely from them. Not least, of course, when 45 percent of our exports go there, and when whole industries depend on employable European staff to exist.

There is a VAST difference between living NEAR a neighbour and living WITH

them.

I am always confused when people talk about exports ....... because it works

both ways. Where do their exports go?

Why are divorces so expensive?

Because they are worth it.

Obviously dont know about Brexit except what I read here, but guess thats why states rights are so important here in the US, and most want as little federal interference as possible. So to even give up a small portion of control or determination is really distasteful to a lot of Americans. Especially to a body that has no idea what local population wants.

Maybe its an over simplistic view, but seems the EU wants to make it difficult because they know once they have no control, Britain can negotiate from a position of strength on each and every issue. They need Britain more than Britain needs the EU. If it was working Brexit wouldn't have even had a chance to pass in the first place.

originally posted by: eletheia
Immigration was NEVER the issue ....... although a lot of people used it

to call the Brits racists.

We wished to control our immigration, and not have open borders as Merkle

was foisting on ALL EU members.

Not true. The UK was always able to control immigration as all other EU countries do, but the UK decided to stop all border checks for EU nationals in 1998 against advice by the EU.

And why do you keep on going on about Merkel's open door policy when it only applied to Germany and only in 2015? The EU Court rejected the open door policy in 2017!

originally posted by: jeep3r

I doubt that "average joe" had an understanding of the full extent of what Brexit means back in 2016. And he isn't even to blame for that. It just seems like the whole Brexit thing has been presented like a "walk in the park" and that's simply not true.

Exactly right, hell even the politicians who thought they knew what shape brexit would take were guessing. It was obvious to me that nobody had a clue how to impliment it and it was a train wreck in the making, it had a big input on my decision to vote Remain.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: eletheia
Immigration was NEVER the issue ....... although a lot of people used it

to call the Brits racists.

We wished to control our immigration, and not have open borders as Merkle

was foisting on ALL EU members.

Not true. The UK was always able to control immigration as all other EU countries do, but the UK decided to stop all border checks for EU nationals in 1998 against advice by the EU.

And why do you keep on going on about Merkel's open door policy when it only applied to Germany and only in 2015? The EU Court rejected the open door policy in 2017!

HAHAHA! You think that is someone going "on and on"?!?! Well you need to take a look at US news and listen for the word collusion and THEN you will understand what "on and on" means.

Don't take this personally, I was just joking around. We here in the states (at least some of us) are a bit stretched thin after hearing some of these hosts/MSM drone on about certain issues.

originally posted by: Agartha

Not true. The UK was always able to control immigration as all other EU countries do, but the UK decided to stop all border checks for EU nationals in 1998 against advice by the EU.
And why do you keep on going on about Merkel's open door policy when it only applied to Germany and only in 2015? The EU Court rejected the open door policy in 2017!

Angela Merkel stands firm as Germany's refugee row intensifies
Dispute could bring down coalition government, while leaders of France and Italy debate EU immigration policy
The standoff in Berlin echoed deepening divisions across Europe over how to handle irregular migration. The issue was also the focus of talks in Paris on Friday, at which the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and Italy’s prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, called for radical, Europe-wide changes to EU refugee policy.

We must not contribute to weakening the European Union and purely national measures setting the tone again in Europe,” Seibert said. “Then Europe wouldn’t play the strong role in the world that’s required now.”

In Paris, Macron and Conte sought to patch up a Franco-Italian diplomatic spat sparked this week by the French president accusing Rome of “cynicism and irresponsibility” after anti-immigration minister Matteo Salvini refused the Aquarius migrant rescue ship access to Italian ports, forcing it to head to Spain.

The CSU has said it is not prepared to wait for two weeks. Markus Söder, the minister president of Bavaria and a leading member of the party, said: “Why will we achieve something in two weeks that was not possible in three years?”

The reference was to the refugee crisis in the summer of 2015, when Merkel’s open-border policy allowed almost a million refugees to enter Germany – a decision widely blamed for helping the rightwing, populist and anti-immigrant Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) into the Bundestag in elections last year.

The stubborn stance of the Bavaria-based CSU has been put down to its upcoming state elections, where it faces a drubbing by the AfD to which it has already lost millions of voters.

Söder insisted the CSU was not staging a putsch to topple Merkel. “It’s about restoring trust in the German state of law which has been shattered,” he said.

www.theguardian.com...

I personally agree and disagree with your analysis and let me explain why.

To me your analysis gets some things right so let me first tell you where I agree with you. I agree with you that yes the people voted to leave but only by 1.7%. I agree with you that the EU doesn't want to make the processes of us leaving easy and I believe they have good reasons behind this view. Further more I agree with you that Mays deal would be very bad for the UK but I also believe that a "no-deal" would be a utter disaster, actually I believe that no deal should mean no-brexit because of the harm it will cause this country ( I know many disagree with me on that point on these boards)

Now, while I agree with you on the above I disagree with you on one very core point of your OP. You see to me it sounds like you are arguing that it is the liberal left who want to have a second referendum and stop Brexit. This to me isn't true, I think this belief stems from a tainted view of what liberalism is from a American perspective. In the UK we view liberalism very much in the classical sense of the word and our politics is not quite as black and white of "left vs right". The Conservative party (hint is in the name) are almost split right down the middle over Brexit with some of them support the calls for a second referendum. I actually wrote a rather in-depth thread on the Case for a Second Referendum recently and one of the points I made is that when you look at the data there is growing support for a second referendum and only about 27% of the electorate when polled support a "no-deal" Brexit.

Hell, even Nigel Farage, the guy who was the real champion of this has came out and said that even he supports a second referendum to basically clear all of this up. The guy who was the face of vote-leave, Boris Johnston even he wrote a Secret Pro-EU article and it seems was very conflicted over his views on the entire vote. So its fundamentally wrong I believe to argue that this is all about some crazy liberals just unhappy with the vote demanding a second one because they didn't get their own way the first time round.

There are a whole load of very good reasons to support a second Brexit referendum and I personally have yet to see any good arguments as to why it would be a bad thing. The most common argument seems to be the paradoxical argument that somehow a second referendum is undemocratic.

Its wrong to say that politicians are basically dragging their feet and not doing their jobs over this, the problem is the they have very limited negotiating power because the EU understandably wants to make this as difficult for the UK as possible. We have had two years of negotiations and in the last few months it has been totally dominating the PMs agenda. Other MPs have been working on it also, such as the ERC who recently tried to get the PM sacked because they weren't happy about her handling of the situation. If am I am honest I am most disappointed with the opposition in government just now because they have yet to make a serious move to change the dangerous course this country is heading in.