Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx
So what's the best outcome in your opinion? Hard Brexit, no trade deal? I think most people accept the result of the referendum but the question posed was 'in' or 'out'. There is no clear definition of what 'out' is. The ultimate hard Brexit would be sever all ties - legal, structural, regulatory but even then, we would need to negotiate with the WTO to set tariff schedules which then would involve negotiating with all WTO members.
Saying everything is going to be alright isn't enough. People want assurance that we will be better off with hard facts, not political platitudes
|
... and when have I said that then eh?
When has anyone seriously said that it's all bad in the EU and it'll be perfect without it?
If Cameron had got reasonable concessions the vote would have gone the other way. He didn't and the reason for that is purely the intransigence of the other side would would not compromise on their core values and objectives. That was known before we voted and that's the reason we got the outcome we did IMHO. By the way that's just an opinion - I can't produce facts to back it up any more than David Davis can produce facts which prove what life outside the EU will be like. Are you seriously suggesting that people didn't know that and need another chance just to be sure? If we'd voted to stay in what proof was there of how the EU would turn out, whether the Greece crisis wouldn't erupt, whether the Italian banks wouldn't implode and take us with them? You can't prove what the future holds but you can decide that you don't like the past and present sufficiently to decide to change course and that's what people did in 2016. In life that's all we have. Like it or lump it.
Everything isn't going to be alright but the belief of those who voted to leave clearly was that what they knew about being in the EU wasn't enough to stop them voting for an outcome that could never be clear in advance because it's never been done before. They accepted that fact and made their decision based on it.
In your world the truth is we'd never be able to leave the EU because in order to do so our government would have to be equipped with a crystal ball the output of which was cast iron proof of something which the majority feel would be better. How's that going to be done then? Even if it were done there'd be those for whom a better economy for example wouldn't make up for not being part of a singe state or vice versa, how would that ever be reconciled? Being better off isn't just about extra cash in your pocket, it's about things like the right to determine your own future, it's about being able to pick and choose who you allow to live/work in your country, it's about being able to say we don't want to be in a single European state governed by Brussels bureaucrats, it's about being able to deal with other countries as we see fit and on terms we decide.
We can go over this again and again but the result was to leave not to stay half in or half out. The electorate knew what that meant and voted accordingly. Time to move on and get on with it but if you want proof of anything I'm afraid not even Juncker can give you that.
The best outcome in my opinion would be for the UK to get out and run its own affairs with as much co-operation as possible with the EU. We cannot be isolated from them or they from us. That ought to be possible and the UK seems to be being quite reasonable in putting forward suggestions only to have the other side refuse to talk until... That for me sums up the EU sadly, it's being run by people whose own ideology clouds everything else they say and do and that's why the EU is seeing a rise in right wing extremism etc. Anyone who thinks that's gone away with the outcome of the French election by the way needs to think again. It's only going to get worse and that's yet another reason for us to get out.