Merged Now What?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Disagreed, both sides did lie outright.

Which is, actually, moral equivalence.

The entire leave campaign was based on a fabric of lies. Lies on immigration. Lies on the costs of the EU. Lies on what could be achieved out of the EU.

The remain campaign was not.

 

[ceptimus]

Remain said we would be poorer, and we are (but not perhaps by X per household). Leave said we would be richer, and we are not. I realize it's too early to say that these are lasting effects, of course.

Leave said there would be short term instability and that we'd eventually be better off once we're out of the EU.

It's not yet been two weeks since the referendum and it will most likely be at least another two years before we're out of the EU, so it's a little early to be springing to judgement.

 

[Rat]

Leave said there would be short term instability and that we'd eventually be better off once we're out of the EU.

It's not yet been two weeks since the referendum and it will most likely be at least another two years before we're out of the EU, so it's a little early to be springing to judgement.

And those of us who are ruined financially in the meantime will just have to suck it up.

 

[MikeG]

Remain said we would be poorer, and we are (but not perhaps by X per household). Leave said we would be richer, and we are not. I realize it's too early to say that these are lasting effects, of course.

Come on Rat, don't be silly. We're still in the EU. You can't even begin to evaluate the costs (and/ or benefits) of leaving the EU until we've actually left.

 

[uke2se]

Then I consider your claim to be falsified: you said you allowed and welcomed legitimate reasons, but somehow failed to see any for the Leave camp. There was plenty of legitimate reasons on both sides, but of course neither side wants to admit that.

Name one and explain why it's legitimate.

 

[uke2se]

You seem to be ignoring that the original claim I was responding to was that they should have, somehow, have had a plan for leaving.

I've already agreed that the Brexit campaign's job was to campaign for Brexit. That seems obvious to me.

Don't you even agree that it would be responsible to have a plan and irresponsible to not?

Or that the Brexit campaign surely led on that leaving the EU would be smooth sailing?

 

[uke2se]

Are you claiming that the Remain campaign did not lie?

I'm claiming that there is no equivalency between the campaigns in the honesty department.

 

[GlennB]

Come on Rat, don't be silly. We're still in the EU. You can't even begin to evaluate the costs (and/ or benefits) of leaving the EU until we've actually left.

Well, I can make a start. I need to transfer money from the UK to Greece and the exchange rate has dropped by 15 cents to the £, a fact that will, I imagine, be affecting Brits holidaying in Europe.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Come on Rat, don't be silly. We're still in the EU. You can't even begin to evaluate the costs (and/ or benefits) of leaving the EU until we've actually left.

Yes, you can't count all this because we're still in the EU. Even though the vote to leave is what caused it, it doesn't count.

Absolutely insanity from the Leave side as usual.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Let's just go on the record now and predict that the argument in 2 years time when things go further wrong will be 'it's not because we left the EU. We voted for that 2 years ago so why would they wait until now?'

Whatever the driving force behind Leave was it's becoming increasingly clear that it was nothing to do with whether people would actually be better off in or out.

 

[MikeG]

Don't you even agree that it would be responsible to have a plan and irresponsible to not?........

This has been gone over a number of times. Yes, a plan from the civil servants under instruction from Cameron should have been done. It is ridiculous that it wasn't. However, the Leave campaign fundamentally could not do any planning. Please see multiple posts on this matter: a cross party campaign group couldn't possibly make any post Brexit plans because they were in no position to commit any party to anything given that the official position of both major parties was to remain. As I asked before......how would Osborne react to any pledge made by Gisela Stuart?

 

[Rat]

Yes, I know (as in personally) three people who have lost their jobs as a direct result. If there is an extended recession, I will almost certainly lose mine. I don't expect people to vote for what is in my financial interest, of course.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This has been gone over a number of times. Yes, a plan from the civil servants under instruction from Cameron should have been done. It is ridiculous that it wasn't. However, the Leave campaign fundamentally could not do any planning. Please see multiple posts on this matter: a cross party campaign group couldn't possibly make any post Brexit plans because they were in no position to commit any party to anything given that the official position of both major parties was to remain. As I asked before......how would Osborne react to any pledge made by Gisela Stuart?

The could have spelled out what the people who were voting leave were actually voting for, couldn't they? Is it EEA? Is it completely out?

How the hell you can defend this crap is beyond belief.

 

[Belz...]

Because 'here's what we should do' actually requires some kind of 'what we should do'.

"What we should do" was "leave the EU".

Voting to leave the EU without actually thinking about what the alternative might be is reckless.

Sure, for the voter. But the actual plan would come after the referendum.

Maybe you think that by plan we mean 'detailed point by point action list'? What I mean is an actual idea of what they want to achieve. Nobody seems quite clear what they actually voted for now.

Seems clear to me: leave the EU.

Well you will note that I didn't misrepresent the reasons.

Yeah, you did, which is why I said what I said.

Well it was it for some people.

That is a different claim from "that's what the Leave voters were about".

Hmm, you never heard that one?

I can't make heads or tails of it, actually.

Given that we've already wiped the saving out for the next 25 years or so just in terms of the impact of the vote without even considering the impact of being outside the EU no it wasn't really legitimate.

That makes no sense, as it doesn't answer what I said. Also, an initial cost may be offset in the long term. Finally, would you mind substantiating that 25 years saving claim?

Well again you seem to be arguing in favour of legitimate arguments that haven't been made and that you haven't provided.

Oh, they've been made.

The ones that I saw made no sense.

Let me ask you a question, then: were you in favour of Remain from the beginning? If you were, your comment there might be due to you focusing on Remain arguments and characterisations of the Leave arguments. I was undecided right up to the end of the day on the 23rd, so I heard arguments from both sides.

 

[Belz...]

Name one and explain why it's legitimate.

Here's two:

1) The EU's parliament cannot propose laws, only vote on them. That sounds far less democratic than the UK's own parliamentary system, and leaving the EU would allow the UK to maintain a firmer grip on its own laws and regulations. I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to want to control its own legal system.

2) Within the EU, the UK cannot refuse migrants that were vetted by other EU countries. I think it's entirely legitimate for a country to want to have control over its own borders, and that has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia.

Don't you even agree that it would be responsible to have a plan and irresponsible to not?

It would be irresponsible to not have a plan once article 50 is invoked.

It wouldn't be irresponsible to not have a plan when you're only in the process of asking people whether or not they want to stay in the EU.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

"What we should do" was "leave the EU".



Sure, for the voter. But the actual plan would come after the referendum.



Seems clear to me: leave the EU.



Yeah, you did, which is why I said what I said.



That is a different claim from "that's what the Leave voters were about".



I can't make heads or tails of it, actually.



That makes no sense, as it doesn't answer what I said. Also, an initial cost may be offset in the long term. Finally, would you mind substantiating that 25 years saving claim?



Oh, they've been made.



Let me ask you a question, then: were you in favour of Remain from the beginning? If you were, your comment there might be due to you focusing on Remain arguments and characterisations of the Leave arguments. I was undecided right up to the end of the day on the 23rd, so I heard arguments from both sides.

What does Leave the EU actually mean? If we stay in the EEA and have freedom of movement and contribute a much or more than we currently do will people who voted Leave be happy with that? If the answer is 'no' for even a reasonable segment then I think we can say that the leave option needed to be better explained.

Again I didn't misrepresent the arguments I asked for them. Yet again you don't want to give them. Nobody does. Not even one. I can only tell you the arguments I have seen made. If there are better ones then give them. I doubt you will.

Leavers seem great at being riled up about things. Not so hot on reasoned argument.

 

[Lothian]

Come on Rat, don't be silly. We're still in the EU. You can't even begin to evaluate the costs (and/ or benefits) of leaving the EU until we've actually left.

In other words.
The stream of fans walking out of the stadium can not be taken as an indicator of their dissatisfaction of their team's performance as the final whistle has not been blown.

 

[The Don]

This has been gone over a number of times. Yes, a plan from the civil servants under instruction from Cameron should have been done.

I'm reasonably certain that there would have been contingency planning but unless there is some idea of the kind of Brexit model that Leave have in mind then it's very difficult to come to any conclusion.

It seemed that Boris was in favour of a Brexit-lite (my term) in which the UK's relationship with Europe was largely unchanged and that we'd aim for some kind of enhanced Norway or Swiss deal (if we could negotiate it).

OTOH there were others who wanted out at all costs and wouldn't consider anything less than full control of borders, removing all EU legislation and so on.

These two different Leave models (and a myriad different versions in between) would require different plans and different mitigation. If the government based its plans on one then supporters of the other would squeal in protest.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm reasonably certain that there would have been contingency planning but unless there is some idea of the kind of Brexit model that Leave have in mind then it's very difficult to come to any conclusion.

It seemed that Boris was in favour of a Brexit-lite (my term) in which the UK's relationship with Europe was largely unchanged and that we'd aim for some kind of enhanced Norway or Swiss deal (if we could negotiate it).

OTOH there were others who wanted out at all costs and wouldn't consider anything less than full control of borders, removing all EU legislation and so on.

These two different Leave models (and a myriad different versions in between) would require different plans and different mitigation. If the government based its plans on one then supporters of the other would squeal in protest.

It's hard to pin down exactly what Boris was in favour of. He repeated the £350m/week we don't control line often enough to suggest that being in the EEA and still having to pay it wasn't his plan. He moaned about non-specific EU regulations enough that a solution where we still have to follow them wasn't in the plans.

 

[The Don]

It's hard to pin down exactly what Boris was in favour of. He repeated the £350m/week we don't control line often enough to suggest that being in the EEA and still having to pay it wasn't his plan. He moaned about non-specific EU regulations enough that a solution where we still have to follow them wasn't in the plans.

True