Is Every Option Forward within Brexit now a Betrayal? Watch

Poll: What is your preferred way forward?
No Deal exit (5)
26.32%
Stay within CU & SM (Norway) exit, (0)
0%
Irish Sea Border exit (1)
5.26%
Remain/status quo option (8)
42.11%
Remain further integration option (5)
26.32%
Something else (Please state) (0)
0%
Gmart
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Gmart

It's a shame you added the reply to me and the reply to Mr can't listen-own voice lover. Much of what you are saying got mixed up and became very difficult to follow.

I'm sorry Im going to reask the same questions again.
I thought twice about doing so, but as you are both Brexiteers the answers intersect...

[...]the incompetence of a handful of useless Tories in government

This is a criticism of representative democracy. We voted for them and they got this deal. We are just not as important as the EU. It is amazing we have such a strong place within in. We should use that to help move the EU away from its problems which are many. Even Varifakis (who has more reason than most) is a remainer, preferring to reform from within.

[...]why should no deal be off the table whom gave the mandate for this?

No deal screws the Northern Irish, one of the four constituent parts of the union. Being able to sweep this fact under a convenient mat is ignorant of this issue. I would recommend that Brexiteers concentrate on one of the other options which do not create this schism. No one voted to break up the union.

After all the people rejected remain in a referendum and furthermore elected a government on the promises of delivering Brexit, the parrot like slogan was 'no deal is better than a bad deal'

That's just a slogan. Many promises were made but in the end the election was between two parties who were still promising a cake and eat it future of skipping unicorns in the park of unlimited wealth does not mean that that decision is finished. The original vote was advisory anyway because that was all Cameron could get through parliament. Taking away our rights based on a 52% advisory vote would be oppressive. If the public still wish to leave then fine, but such a constitutionally drastic step requires more than a 52% 2016 vote no matter what you were promised.

[...]therefore how given the overwhelming mandate from the British people how can no deal be removed?

Overwhelming mandate? Hardly.

In the end our representatives went and got a deal and parliament voted it down as unacceptable. The default is the status quo not jumping off a cliff no matter how loud the fundamentalists scream. At some point we have to choose a way forward and this vote is a way.

Note how the Brexiteer camp is divided between the fundamentalists desperately trying to get to the finish line to 'properly' get out of the EU before we change our mind. And the moderates who know that this is a bad idea and can see the evidence, but find it hard to backtrack to a position where we are an important, contributing member of the EU.

Let me repeat that the Brexiteer camp is supporting the removal of rights from the populus at large. How often have you thought about that and wondered if the original vote was enough to do that?
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by Gmart)
One valid criticism of another vote is the idea of re-running the original vote.

With every side of Brexit being portrayed by different groups as a betrayal, could we not agree to have an alternative vote where the various ways forward, (the more the better), might be listed so that this gordian knot of an impasse can be better resolved.

I am thinking of a variety including:
  1. a No Deal exit,
  2. a within CU&SM (Norway) exit,
  3. an Irish Sea Border exit,
  4. a remain/status quo option,
  5. a remain further integration option.

Can anyone think of an option I've missed? This could only be described as different to the original vote and simply trying to get the electorate to truly inform the politicians in the necessary detail required to move forward as the original vote was evidently too binary to enable them to move forward.

And before both sides start shrieking just 'get out' or 'stay in' louder and louder as if that were an option, without listening to either side, it should be noted that the original vote was at least in part a cry for help from those left behind within our electorate. We should recognise this even if the idea of solving the consequences of globalisation might seem insurmountable, all sides would need to put forward how they might fix this practically rather than engaging within a prediction-based, 'believe' mentality more akin to the religious.

Certainly the argument that democracy might be better informed now as we better know the costs of the actual exit/remain we can see coming towards us is fair comment and hopefully not controversial. Now we need to use the education we have all 'enjoyed' over the last couple of years to move forward on this issue and start to address the true issues we face as a country.
Every option isn’t a betrayal of the vote.

No deal isn’t a betrayal and neither is Mays deal with a end to the backstop or a legal time limit put into it.

The only betrayals to the vote are the remain options.

Second referendum
Norway
Stopping no deal
Revoking article 50
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Gmart)
I thought twice about doing so, but as you are both Brexiteers the answers intersect...

[...]the incompetence of a handful of useless Tories in government

This is a criticism of representative democracy. We voted for them and they got this deal. We are just not as important as the EU. It is amazing we have such a strong place within in. We should use that to help move the EU away from its problems which are many. Even Varifakis (who has more reason than most) is a remainer, preferring to reform from within.

[...]why should no deal be off the table whom gave the mandate for this?

No deal screws the Northern Irish, one of the four constituent parts of the union. Being able to sweep this fact under a convenient mat is ignorant of this issue. I would recommend that Brexiteers concentrate on one of the other options which do not create this schism. No one voted to break up the union.

After all the people rejected remain in a referendum and furthermore elected a government on the promises of delivering Brexit, the parrot like slogan was 'no deal is better than a bad deal'

That's just a slogan. Many promises were made but in the end the election was between two parties who were still promising a cake and eat it future of skipping unicorns in the park of unlimited wealth does not mean that that decision is finished. The original vote was advisory anyway because that was all Cameron could get through parliament. Taking away our rights based on a 52% advisory vote would be oppressive. If the public still wish to leave then fine, but such a constitutionally drastic step requires more than a 52% 2016 vote no matter what you were promised.

[...]therefore how given the overwhelming mandate from the British people how can no deal be removed?

Overwhelming mandate? Hardly.

In the end our representatives went and got a deal and parliament voted it down as unacceptable. The default is the status quo not jumping off a cliff no matter how loud the fundamentalists scream. At some point we have to choose a way forward and this vote is a way.

Note how the Brexiteer camp is divided between the fundamentalists desperately trying to get to the finish line to 'properly' get out of the EU before we change our mind. And the moderates who know that this is a bad idea and can see the evidence, but find it hard to backtrack to a position where we are an important, contributing member of the EU.

Let me repeat that the Brexiteer camp is supporting the removal of rights from the populus at large. How often have you thought about that and wondered if the original vote was enough to do that?
Oh I would say my opinion is far from his, this is half the problem In the way that people are so fixated with labeling people and grouping them together as opposed to listening to each others real concerns. Part of good debate is using you're ears and brain before using your mouth.
You written a lot so clearly care deeply about what you are saying and believe your are correct and are acting in the best interests, the problem is so do I. Unfortunately I feel you are making vast assumptions about what other people are thinking and what will happen should we leave which you don't know to be true.
Firstly you told me I am making a criticism of representative democracy. I'm not at all. I was questioning your statement from earlier. Why should the majority of the electorate have their wish over thrown by the incompetence of a handful of useless Tories in government? That's it, that's all I meant. Please don't look for one sentence you disagree with and reinvent what I'm saying to suit your point. We voted for them and they got this deal, however the 'brexiteers' did not get this deal because their remain supporting boss blocked them from doing so repeatedly at every turn. Therefore I'll ask the question again how have the Brexiteers (I hate that label) let the negotiations down?
Secondly, the election manifesto the government was elected on was not just a slogan, I think I must of missed the version where unicorns were offered? The reality is government was elected on a promises of delivering Brexit, I personally know of one person whom hates the tories but voted for them last GE because of Brexit alone. This government was elected on the promises they made on Brexit alone, to say otherwise is disingenuous.
Thirdly a vote for leaving the EU is just that, it's a vote for leaving the EU. It's not jumping off a cliff or taking away our rights, really your actions are exceptionally fearful almost akin or a child scared of light being switched off because they don't understand the room does not change in the dark. We are not falling off a cliff or losing any rights we are taking control of our own destiny. You keep saying we did not vote for this or that you disagree but you are missing the fact that we did not vote to remain. As Paul correctly says the only betrayals to the vote are the remain options.
Fourth, Overwhelming mandate, Hardly how? Sorry how not? We have voted the leave 52% bench mark agreed was 50%. We rejected remain parties in the next snap general election. No majority body has voted to remain full stop, how is that possibly a mandate to stay in the EU?
Furthermore, we are not less important than Europe, I'm sorry I think this may be the problem. I'm English first, British second and European third. Like the leader of the remain campaign said 'I don't love Europe, I love Britain' 'we can survive and prospour outside of Europe' I agree with him on that point.
Britain is more important than the European Union!
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Britain is more important than the European Union!
I think this be the problem. Sure, Britain is important to us all. If feeds and nurtures us. Trouble is, you don't seem to realise the pain a hard Brexit is about to inflict. 10 years ago, Britain was in the middle of near banking collapse. The fallout from that nearly bought the country to its knees. We still have not recoveded to pre 2008 levels of prosperity. You talk about short term pain for long term gain, but how long term are you looking?

In 2008, I wasn't married - I am now.
In 2008, I didn't have kids. I now have two.
In 2008, I didn't have a house. I have moved twice since then.

Where will you be in 10 years time having dealt with that "short term" pain. The economic crisis of 2008 was supposed to be short term. What is your definition of short term, cause it ain't going to be a year or so. Recent history shows that.

In 10 years time, my kids will be thinking about leaving home. What sort of country will they have to go into? Clearly opportunities for travelling and working in Europe like I did will be long gone.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 weeks ago
#25
Oh, who cares? The grievance ******s will always complain. Parliament should take us out of the EU, but beyond that it should be entirely down to their own judgement and conscience how we arrange our future relationship.
0
reply
Gmart
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#26
I get that some here disagree with the way or results that the Tories have got from the EU and the deal in general. The reason why that is a problem with elected representation is that we have no choice but to go with our elected representatives. Complaining about the 'useless Tories' is by definition complaining about their actions as an elected representative. Certainly we might agree that the system is flawed but so is the EU.

The Brexiteers have asked their representatives to get a deal and are in the process of rejecting that deal as not good enough. This betrayal of the 'true' form of Brexit is as clear as the betrayal of the 48% and the betrayal of the children we are taking their rights from.

The backstop is a perfect example of the Brexiteers trying to paint a reasonable position as unreasonable. With the history of oppression from the English the Irish have every right to expect no border to continue definitively. The fact that the English find this inconvenient shows the exact selfishness that the Brexiteers don't see as a problem.

The election was won or lost on many issues - not just Brexit. To choose any single issue as the most important is being disingenuous.

The vote to leave the EU does indeed take away many of our rights. One might counter that with drawing attention towards the idea of 'taking control' but that doesn't diminish the rights loss.

Some might consider the Remain options as a betrayal, but I consider the original vote and its vaguety a betrayal and the resultant taking away of our rights as a betrayal. All options are a betrayal to someone and with the deal rejected the Brexiteers have no way forward therefore a further vote to clarify the 'will of the people'

England is fine but it is smaller than the EU and thus we would be operating as a small nation in a world dictated by the large nations and corporate entities.

By the way a BINO would be a betrayal to the Brexiteers who don't see it as a 'true' leave and a betrayal to us all as we would be out, a small country and with much less power.

By the way, do Brexiteers deliberately refuse to comment on Northern Ireland and their much greater betrayal? Or the question as to what it would look like if Brexit were a really bad idea? Or the list of rights we will lose.

No Deal is not an option - as well as betraying the Irish et al, our cost of debt would rise due to our junk status (why would anyone lend to us if we renege on our debts). Business would be negatively impacted and so therefore people's jobs.

You make a big deal of talking up the idea of control as if a medium sized country like ours could have much, but sidestep all the difficult questions. At what point do you consider that maybe the tax haven issue is important and the fact that our government might be looking for a way to gain its independence from an authority which insists on workers rights and environmental protections amongst many others.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by Gmart)
I get that some here disagree with the way or results that the Tories have got from the EU and the deal in general. The reason why that is a problem with elected representation is that we have no choice but to go with our elected representatives. Complaining about the 'useless Tories' is by definition complaining about their actions as an elected representative. Certainly we might agree that the system is flawed but so is the EU.

The Brexiteers have asked their representatives to get a deal and are in the process of rejecting that deal as not good enough. This betrayal of the 'true' form of Brexit is as clear as the betrayal of the 48% and the betrayal of the children we are taking their rights from.

The backstop is a perfect example of the Brexiteers trying to paint a reasonable position as unreasonable. With the history of oppression from the English the Irish have every right to expect no border to continue definitively. The fact that the English find this inconvenient shows the exact selfishness that the Brexiteers don't see as a problem.

The election was won or lost on many issues - not just Brexit. To choose any single issue as the most important is being disingenuous.

The vote to leave the EU does indeed take away many of our rights. One might counter that with drawing attention towards the idea of 'taking control' but that doesn't diminish the rights loss.

Some might consider the Remain options as a betrayal, but I consider the original vote and its vaguety a betrayal and the resultant taking away of our rights as a betrayal. All options are a betrayal to someone and with the deal rejected the Brexiteers have no way forward therefore a further vote to clarify the 'will of the people'

England is fine but it is smaller than the EU and thus we would be operating as a small nation in a world dictated by the large nations and corporate entities.

By the way a BINO would be a betrayal to the Brexiteers who don't see it as a 'true' leave and a betrayal to us all as we would be out, a small country and with much less power.

By the way, do Brexiteers deliberately refuse to comment on Northern Ireland and their much greater betrayal? Or the question as to what it would look like if Brexit were a really bad idea? Or the list of rights we will lose.

No Deal is not an option - as well as betraying the Irish et al, our cost of debt would rise due to our junk status (why would anyone lend to us if we renege on our debts). Business would be negatively impacted and so therefore people's jobs.

You make a big deal of talking up the idea of control as if a medium sized country like ours could have much, but sidestep all the difficult questions. At what point do you consider that maybe the tax haven issue is important and the fact that our government might be looking for a way to gain its independence from an authority which insists on workers rights and environmental protections amongst many others.
I’m not picking any of the points you make but one....

If we are a medium sized country then there is less than 5 big countries, possibly only 3.

It’s a stupid line of argument to take when you have one of the largest economies in the world coupled with a population that has a relatively high wage income.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by paul514)
It’s a stupid line of argument to take when you have one of the largest economies in the world coupled with a population that has a relatively high wage income.
I think this is the risk we take. Assuming that because we have a large economy that people will be queuing up to do business with us. If there is one card that we are holding up to the world right now, it is that we can make a deal, but if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction, we will go back on that deal. Hardly a ringing endorsement. What we need to remember is that the bigger you are, the harder you fall and counties our size have fallen in living memory.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (49)
9.37%
I used to but I don't now (14)
2.68%
No, but I want to start (188)
35.95%
No, I am unable to (122)
23.33%
No, I chose not to (150)
28.68%

Watched Threads

View All