Brexit negotiations

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399

A good article today listing all the likely avenues. There are a few missing that also have a chance, but they won't solve the underlying issues in the long run either.

I don't know about you lot, but the only one that makes sense to me is a second referendum - either with or without the option to remain. Anything else, such as a change of leadership or even government, will bring us back to square one with a high chance of further political deadlock.

In the event of a "final say", the question is whether remain would be an option. I suspect a lot of people wouldn't think of that as fair. However, it's not just about that. It's about what risk the house wants to take when it comes to the public voting for no deal.

They are desperate to avoid a no deal outcome, and the public deciding they want that doesn't make it any more palatable. As far as the politicians are concerned, the national interest comes first. And yes, sometimes the national interest can involve going against the wishes of the people. That's our democratic system. Politicians can be punished heavily for this, but usually after they've made the decision.

Considering the above, the safest bet may be to offer the three options in a preferential vote: remain, the deal, or no deal. That will almost certainly result in the choice boiling down to remaining or taking the deal, which I actually think the deal has a good chance of winning.

Of course, there is the other option: A two-way choice between taking the deal or staying put. But I think the public as a whole would be less fond of that, even if it's a lot more straightforward. The ardent Brexiteers in particular, the majority of which are Tory, would not be happy to have the no deal choice taken away from them, even if that's more of a principle point than a practical one.

 

[Cobby]

I don't know about you lot, but the only one that makes sense to me is a second referendum - either with or without the option to remain. Anything else, such as a change of leadership or even government, will bring us back to square one with a high chance of further political deadlock.

In the event of a "final say", the question is whether remain would be an option. I suspect a lot of people wouldn't think of that as fair. However, it's not just about that. It's about what risk the house wants to take when it comes to the public voting for no deal.

A General Election is all well and good but the EU27 have made it clear there is now no renegotiating, regardless of who wins. It's "No Deal", May's "Deal", or Remain. Doesn't matter who is at the helm.

It's a bit of a paradox.

• No responsible MP will allow the catastrophe of "No Deal".
  
• Therefore any referendum would be between May's "Political Declaration" and Remaining.
• If "Remain" isn't an option, then there's no referendum to be had.

Given the extremely strong desire of the people for a People's Vote, not having it and just going with May's "Deal" which will harm the UK and tie us up indefinitely, will keep the Brexit divisions going for the rest of our lives.

 

[NickGrogan]

Ok, so we have another vote and no deal wins, but politicians dont want it, and probably can't implement no deal, so happens next? Another vote - R3

Or Remain wins 50.5% to 49.5% - less margin than the first referendum, so do we remain? It's hardly convincing.

 

[Mr D]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399

A good article today listing all the likely avenues. There are a few missing that also have a chance, but they won't solve the underlying issues in the long run either.

I don't know about you lot, but the only one that makes sense to me is a second referendum - either with or without the option to remain. Anything else, such as a change of leadership or even government, will bring us back to square one with a high chance of further political deadlock.

In the event of a "final say", the question is whether remain would be an option. I suspect a lot of people wouldn't think of that as fair. However, it's not just about that. It's about what risk the house wants to take when it comes to the public voting for no deal.

They are desperate to avoid a no deal outcome, and the public deciding they want that doesn't make it any more palatable. As far as the politicians are concerned, the national interest comes first. And yes, sometimes the national interest can involve going against the wishes of the people. That's our democratic system. Politicians can be punished heavily for this, but usually after they've made the decision.

Considering the above, the safest bet may be to offer the three options in a preferential vote: remain, the deal, or no deal. That will almost certainly result in the choice boiling down to remaining or taking the deal, which I actually think the deal has a good chance of winning.

Of course, there is the other option: A two-way choice between taking the deal or staying put. But I think the public as a whole would be less fond of that, even if it's a lot more straightforward. The ardent Brexiteers in particular, the majority of which are Tory, would not be happy to have the no deal choice taken away from them, even if that's more of a principle point than a practical one.

Trouble with 3 way voting is that it splits one or two votes.
Say if it was leave, stay or deal. Not a totally impossible setup in decision making.
It splits the leave vote - so while more voters may choose to leave the EU the remain vote would actually win as more votes for that option.
So I for one am not in favour of any 3 way vote.

 

[KM-Tiger]

They are desperate to avoid a no deal outcome, and the public deciding they want that doesn't make it any more palatable.

While leaving the EU to trade on WTO terms continues to be vilified, "crashing out", "cliff edge", "leap in the dark" and other such emotive language, then MPs will be scared of it. But are the public seeing through that?

Where the govt has got caught with its pants down is that the preparation for no deal, which should have been started in earnest in 2016 is to the best of my knowledge nowhere. But that isn't a reason to reject the best option. There will be a £39BN fund that could be made use of by a Chancellor that actually wants to leave.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Crashing out on WTO terms needs a government which supports industry and is nice to foreigners.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...a-s-brexit-grudge-could-cost-u-k-1-7-trillion

 

[KM-Tiger]

Crashing out

Argh!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Ok, so we have another vote and no deal wins, but politicians dont want it, and probably can't implement no deal, so happens next? Another vote - R3

Exactly, which is why I think they won't even consider a referendum unless they can make absolutely sure that no deal has no chance of winning.

I don't think they'll take the gamble otherwise, as in their eyes, it would amount to providing an option they know they can't deliver.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I don't think they'll take the gamble otherwise, as in their eyes, it would amount to providing an option they know they can't deliver.

Theresa May’s under-fire Brexit deal is only backed by two parliamentary constituencies, while some 600 seats would prefer to remain in the EU, new polling shows.

The stark YouGov survey found that just two Tory-held constituencies, Broxbourne and Christchurch, favour Ms May’s blueprint, compared to 30 seats that prefer a no-deal Brexit and 600 areas that put staying in the EU as their first preference.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

While leaving the EU to trade on WTO terms continues to be vilified, "crashing out", "cliff edge", "leap in the dark" and other such emotive language, then MPs will be scared of it. But are the public seeing through that?

Where the govt has got caught with its pants down is that the preparation for no deal, which should have been started in earnest in 2016 is to the best of my knowledge nowhere. But that isn't a reason to reject the best option. There will be a £39BN fund that could be made use of by a Chancellor that actually wants to leave.

To be frank, I don't think some of the public fully appreciate the ramifications of no deal. Or if they do, they just don't care, which doesn't really work from a political standpoint.

And when I say doesn't fully understand, I'm not saying it's down to a lack of knowledge. Many simply don't believe what they're being told. Why? I assume it's a lack of trust based on past events. And the lack of trust is so strong in some cases, that if a politician claims something is true, it provides an automatic reason to believe that it's false.

Take the Irish border. I suspect a number of ardent leavers out there don't really care about it. They'd like no deal, they think a hard border is a price worth paying, and they are prepared to accept the consequences. But that doesn't fly. The Government will not undermine the GFA and risk violence returning. A section of the public claiming they couldn't care less doesn't change that.

Then we have the economic impact. Again, they say it's a price worth paying, or they just don't believe it. But if the politicians truly believe there will be a big impact, they aren't going to send the UK down that route and then have to pick up the pieces when the public is demanding to know why things are getting worse.

All I will say about the economic impacts, and even the Irish border, is this: If it was as easy as some claim, why would MPs make their lives so much harder for themselves and, in many cases, risk the end of their political careers? Should we not stop and ask why they're putting themselves through this when a clean Brexit, if it's that easy, would bring a swift end to the matter?

We may claim that the people running the country aren't listening to our concerns, but maybe we aren't listening to theirs either.

 

[Mr D]

We may claim that the people running the country aren't listening to our concerns, but maybe we aren't listening to theirs either.

Quite possibly onto something there.

I'd hope that the MPs get briefed by people who have a clue what they are talking about, maybe even experts.
OK not the best audience and I'd suggest some of them would struggle with things, maybe even grasping the wrong idea from a brief.

They'll have their own beliefs, they'll have tons of meetings with constituents, lobbyists, other MPs, media etc and their ideas may be shaped differently than those of us finding information out by other means.

Sometimes we will believe the politicians who say what we want to hear, the media who report things that meet our preconceptions, we may meet up with friends in an information bubble where everyone is on the same page, thinking similarly about a particular issue.

Not necessarily what we need to know.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Then we have the economic impact.

Which will actually hit the EU harder than it will us. They absolutely do not want no deal, but our damned fool of a PM has not played the cards right, so they never believed we would exit with no deal, and now parliament is reinforcing that.

It's not too late to play the no deal card. There is a reason the EU offered, on more than one occasion, a Canada+ free trade deal. Again only a damned fool would turn that down, which she did.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Quite possibly onto something there.

I'd hope that the MPs get briefed by people who have a clue what they are talking about, maybe even experts.
OK not the best audience and I'd suggest some of them would struggle with things, maybe even grasping the wrong idea from a brief.

They'll have their own beliefs, they'll have tons of meetings with constituents, lobbyists, other MPs, media etc and their ideas may be shaped differently than those of us finding information out by other means.

Sometimes we will believe the politicians who say what we want to hear, the media who report things that meet our preconceptions, we may meet up with friends in an information bubble where everyone is on the same page, thinking similarly about a particular issue.

Not necessarily what we need to know.

Exactly.

As much as people like to deride MPs, there are 650 of them who do the job day in, day out. They have their finger on the pulse of the management of the country in every single corner of it, with a huge range of different political viewpoints. And they're backed by the Civil Service, which has thousands of consultants, and a big budget, to give them all the analysis and information they need.

I have no doubt that some MPs think very silly things and make very silly decisions, but collectively, I think they're more informed than the country gives them credit for.

So maybe, when the vast majority of them think no deal is too damaging to allow, they may be on to something. Remember that even the MPs who believe in no deal aren't saying that it will work fine if the country continues on its current path. Their forecasts are based on radical changes in the country's economic model in terms of regulations and standards.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Which will actually hit the EU harder than it will us.

I respectfully disagree with this.

The EU is larger than many give it credit for. As well as trillions in intra-EU trade, the value of their external export trade is greater than the United States, and worth way more than half of our total GDP even after our contribution is excluded.

One member, Germany, has a GDP 53% larger than ours, along with 26 other countries, 8 of which are in the top 30 largest economies in the world.

They're also one of the leading regulatory and diplomatic superpowers, with their influence spanning the globe. Just look at GDPR. Countries on the other side of the world toed the line, and as an external country, we would have too.

I keep saying "they", but of course, we were a leader at its table with a significant role in its direction up until recently.

And remember, they're just losing a member and some spending money. Beyond that, the existing framework remains largely the same. We, on the other hand, are dealing with the elimination of single market membership and the upheaval of thousands of trade agreements, regulations, licenses and body memberships that we have to build again from scratch. Not just those within the EU, but also those the EU has negotiated with the rest of the world that we utilise.

I see absolutely nothing to suggest that the EU will come off worse than us. Some pricier German cars aren't going to change that.

It's not too late to play the no deal card. There is a reason the EU offered, on more than one occasion, a Canada+ free trade deal. Again only a damned fool would turn that down, which she did.

I think it is too late. Our politicians know we can't fall out without a deal, and the EU knows it too. They knew it from day one.

Canada+ is great. However, that's a free trade agreement that, whilst still likely to happen, doesn't solve our obsession with trying to exit the customs union when we're the only country on Earth that must leave its only external land border completely open.

 

[Mr D]

I respectfully disagree with this.

The EU is larger than many give it credit for. As well as trillions in intra-EU trade, the value of their external export trade is greater than the United States, and worth way more than half of our total GDP even after our contribution is excluded.

One member, Germany, has a GDP 53% larger than ours, along with 26 other countries, 8 of which are in the top 30 largest economies in the world.

They're also one of the leading regulatory and diplomatic superpowers, with their influence spanning the globe. Just look at GDPR. Countries on the other side of the world toed the line, and as an external country, we would have too.

I keep saying "they", but of course, we were a leader at its table with a significant role in its direction up until recently.

And remember, they're just losing a member and some spending money. Beyond that, the existing framework remains largely the same. We, on the other hand, are dealing with the elimination of single market membership and the upheaval of thousands of trade agreements, regulations, licenses and body memberships that we have to build again from scratch. Not just those within the EU, but also those the EU has negotiated with the rest of the world that we utilise.

I see absolutely nothing to suggest that the EU will come off worse than us. Some pricier German cars aren't going to change that.



I think it is too late. Our politicians know we can't fall out without a deal, and the EU knows it too. They knew it from day one.

Canada+ is great. However, that's a free trade agreement that, whilst still likely to happen, doesn't solve our obsession with trying to exit the customs union when we're the only country on Earth that must leave its only external land border completely open.

And any free trade agreement could well take longer to negotiate and implement than we'd like. Based on the timescale for current agreement to get where it is, anyone want to bet on a free trade agreement being negotiated and implementation started (not fully up to speed) inside of 5 years from next March?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

And any free trade agreement could well take longer to negotiate and implement than we'd like. Based on the timescale for current agreement to get where it is, anyone want to bet on a free trade agreement being negotiated and implementation started (not fully up to speed) inside of 5 years from next March?

That ain't happening either.

To be honest, this supposed post-Brexit schedule is so far detached from reality that the only possible explanation is that it's for domestic political purposes to appease the electorate.

That 2020 end date for the transition period will arrive, we'll extend it to 2022, and by then, we'll still be trying to solve the Irish border situation and have no free trade agreements ratified.

The big Brexit headache has barely even started.

 

[Mr D]

That ain't happening either.

To be honest, this supposed post-Brexit schedule is so far detached from reality that the only possible explanation is that it's for domestic political purposes to appease the electorate.

That 2020 end date for the transition period will arrive, we'll extend it to 2022, and by then, we'll still be trying to solve the Irish border situation and have no free trade agreements ratified.

The big Brexit headache has barely even started.

Will the EU agree to extend the transition period?

Now what could we offer them in terms of money, rights, agreements to get them to accept an extension that's also not political suicide?

 

[Newchodge]

Another referendum will not solve the problem. It is time for the politicians to do what they are paid for and act in the best interests of this country.

Leaving the EU will leave us worse off financially at least for some time to come. Leaving without a deal will leave us substantially worse off for some time to come.

Leaving the EU without a deal means we immediately get back control of our borders. Including our border with the Republic of Ireland. For the past 40 years we have had some control of our borders, for example requiring EU nationals who have no job within 3 months to leave; for example requiring EU nationals living here to register. Our governments chose not to implement that control. Why does anyone think that governmental inertia will change? And how does anyone deal with the Ireland/N Ireland border without destroying the GFA and, potentially, peace.

Leaving the EU without a deal means we take back control of our laws. We decide what our health and safety requirements are, we decide what environmental controls are necessary, we decide food safety standards. If our decisions over those things put us in conflict with potential trading partners, we don't trade with them. If we trade with the US and allow their food safety standards the Republic of Ireland will close its border with us because the EU will not accept the rubbish food standards of the US. Goodbye peace in Northern Ireland.

If we negotiate a settlement of any kind it will be worse than staying in, financially. Norway was shouted about by the Leave campaign during the referendum - Norway pays more than we do to the EU and has to accept freedom of movement and the other 3 freedoms, without any say in the decisions. What would we gain from a Norway style agreement?

The only way out of this mess is for the politicians, whose job it is, to explain to the people of this country that leaving the EU is not, under any assessment, in the best interests of this country at this time. That possibly, with proper impartial consideration of all the options, there may be a way to leave in the future, but leaving on 29 March will destroy the lives of many who are already suffering and produce no tangible benefit for anyone for the foreseeable future. Even Rees Mogg said it would take some 50 YEARS for the UK to feel any benefit.

 

[KM-Tiger]

And any free trade agreement could well take longer to negotiate and implement than we'd like. Based on the timescale for current agreement to get where it is, anyone want to bet on a free trade agreement being negotiated and implementation started (not fully up to speed) inside of 5 years from next March?

Maybe not, but there are possibilities.

If we leave to trade under WTO rules (crashing out!), then WTO rules, specifically GATT Art 24, allows for parties to enter a transition agreement that maintains the status quo while a new deal is negotiated. So we could continue zero tariff trade with the EU, but have left the political EU. And as you observe, the transition could last for 5+ years.

 

[Gecko001]

It is far too hard to predict anything at the minute. Although what seems to have been emerging over the last few weeks is that Labour is moving away from their " preferred option" of a General Election, presumably hoping that they do not get a general election before 29th March so that revoking Article 50 will not take place on their watch. However, they will not mind if the present government is forced, by votes in Parliament, to disregard the referendum result and stay in the EU.

 

[Newchodge]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...yn-general-election-brexit-labour-theresa-may today's Guardian doesn't seem to imply that. It is probably the difficulty of getting a general election called that has led to them going down other routes.

 

[Gecko001]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...yn-general-election-brexit-labour-theresa-may today's Guardian doesn't seem to imply that. It is probably the difficulty of getting a general election called that has led to them going down other routes.

It appears that Corbyn has ditched a general election as a "preferred option" and now sees it as one of several options.

 

[Mr D]

It is far too hard to predict anything at the minute. Although what seems to have been emerging over the last few weeks is that Labour is moving away from their " preferred option" of a General Election, presumably hoping that they do not get a general election before 29th March so that revoking Article 50 will not take place on their watch. However, they will not mind if the present government is forced, by votes in Parliament, to disregard the referendum result and stay in the EU.

Considering his 6 points that any agreement must meet includes effectively being part of the EU its a pretty good guess.

I do wonder sometimes if he will stick to his party's agreed ideas regarding the EU. He's not noted for following the party line prior to being leader.

 

[The Byre]

It is far too hard to predict anything at the minute.

I am finding it very easy! There won't be any Brexit.

Even if the Maybot gets her proposed deal through, she is going to have to (in the end) deal with platoons of EU experts each fluent in three or four languages, each with multiple doctorates in international law and/or economics and all of one opinion. That one opinion is that the four basic freedoms are indivisible.

She will be armed with a few unprepared civil servants who will have a graduate education at best and no in-depth knowledge of EU law. Not only that, but they are representing a government and a country that looks as if it is beginning to get desperate and they are dealing with 27 other countries who really don't give a damn. That is a very one-sided negotiating position!

The best any UK government can hope for is a 'Norway-Plus' i.e. no Brexit at all!

My heart goes out to all you Brexiteers, you were sold a pap. You were sold a Christmas box with a dog turd inside.

I am a European and I believe in a future United States of Europe. But if I were a Brexiteer, I would be as mad as a wet hen and do a 'Gilets Jaunes' and be protesting like mad, burning effigies of leading politicians for lying to me and for doing nothing for two-and-a-half years, other than bickering like spoilt children.

 

[Gecko001]

I am a European and I believe in a future United States of Europe. But if I were a Brexiteer, I would be as mad as a wet hen and do a 'Gilets Jaunes' and be protesting like mad, burning effigies of leading politicians for lying to me and for doing nothing for two-and-a-half years, other than bickering like spoilt children.

A United States of Europe supporter giving advice to Brexiteers, is like the fox giving advice to the chickens in the chicken coop.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

she is going to have to (in the end) deal with platoons of EU experts each fluent in three or four languages, each with multiple doctorates in international law and/or economics and all of one opinion.

What we also need to be aware of is that many of those EU lawyers are British and are pissed in spades that they will be losing their jobs next year.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I am a European and I believe in a future United States of Europe.

Will never work.

Compare with the United States of America. One currency, one language, one system of law. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of achieving that in Europe. Except maybe by force, and that has been tried and failed.

I think there is a space for a European organisation of cooperating democratic nation states, but that's a long way from the EU with its top down politburo style regulation.

 

[Mr D]

Will never work.

Compare with the United States of America. One currency, one language, one system of law. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of achieving that in Europe. Except maybe by force, and that has been tried and failed.

I think there is a space for a European organisation of cooperating democratic nation states, but that's a long way from the EU with its top down politburo style regulation.

The USA took better part of a century and a couple of civil wars to become the United States.
We are closer to the States in the 1820s than in the 1860s.

 

[simon field]

But if I were a Brexiteer, I would be as mad as a wet hen and do a 'Gilets Jaunes' and be protesting like mad, burning effigies of leading politicians for lying to me and for doing nothing for two-and-a-half years, other than bickering like spoilt children.

But why would you? Most brexiteers don't really give a toss, and nor do most remainers! Only snowflakes, angry people, hand-wringers and media-sponges care much one way or the other - they were just asked to make a decision based on their own experiences and leanings so that's just what they did!

 

[The Byre]

Will never work.

You're probably right!

I see things through tinted glasses, as everybody in my family is at least bilingual, my wife is trilingual (English, German and Gaelic) and one cousin is absolutely fluent in six languages (Eng, German, French, Swedish, Russian and Italian).

Most brexiteers don't really give a toss, and nor do most remainers!

Then why are we all wasting all this effort and billions of pounds on this exercise in futility?

 

[Mr D]

Then why are we all wasting all this effort and billions of pounds on this exercise in futility?

Because political parties have suggested a referendum about the EU and one gave us a referendum. Now they are implementing the result, like it or lump it.

 

[simon field]

You're probably right!

I see things through tinted glasses, as everybody in my family is at least bilingual, my wife is trilingual (English, German and Gaelic) and one cousin is absolutely fluent in six languages (Eng, German, French, Swedish, Russian and Italian).


Then why are we all wasting all this effort and billions of pounds on this exercise in futility?

I have no idea! No different to asking ‘shall we keep tea, or coffee?’

Half the people were always going to have to drink what the other half wanted them to!

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Will never work.

Compare with the United States of America. One currency, one language, one system of law. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of achieving that in Europe. Except maybe by force, and that has been tried and failed.

The USA has a legal system and laws for each state. In some States you can smoke dope, no problem. In other states you will be arrested. You might not remember Sonny Liston who got arrested for crossing a County line, not State, where the law about carrying guns and booze were different. Even tax laws are different with Delaware acting like an offshore entity. Each state has a different voting system and way of counting the votes.

Perhaps you don't travel much in Europe but it is rapidly becoming a one language area. Nearly all Universities have lectures in English. French High schools are experimenting with teaching maths in English. When I was doing work for ad agencies in Germany I was told to never ask the telephone woman or receptionist whether she spoke English as it was considered an insult.

The EU is a Customs Union. Canada seems to operate quite well without being one. There are customs posts between states.

Like the Byre I would welcome greater European integration.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I would welcome greater European integration.

Like what?

And how could it be achieved without further loss of freedom?

 

[The Byre]

And how could it be achieved without further loss of freedom?

The one freedom that has not been touched on properly is the freedom to vote with your feet.

When I left the Paras back in '73, there just were no decent jobs or careers going in the UK and the situation was rapidly deteriorating. But because Britain was in the Common Market, I could work anywhere in Europe just about. After bumming around the World (inc. running a chicken farm in Israel) I went to Germany, as did many Brits.

"If you can't give me a decent life here, I'm off!" was my attitude.

The freedom to be able to vote with your feet is the most important freedom of all!

 

[Mr D]

The USA has a legal system and laws for each state. In some States you can smoke dope, no problem. In other states you will be arrested. You might not remember Sonny Liston who got arrested for crossing a County line, not State, where the law about carrying guns and booze were different. Even tax laws are different with Delaware acting like an offshore entity. Each state has a different voting system and way of counting the votes.

Perhaps you don't travel much in Europe but it is rapidly becoming a one language area. Nearly all Universities have lectures in English. French High schools are experimenting with teaching maths in English. When I was doing work for ad agencies in Germany I was told to never ask the telephone woman or receptionist whether she spoke English as it was considered an insult.

The EU is a Customs Union. Canada seems to operate quite well without being one. There are customs posts between states.

Like the Byre I would welcome greater European integration.

You missed out the Federal system which applies across all states along with the system of accepting things across states - you get married in California then Maryland treats you as married.
Federal, state, county, city (and town) laws and ways of doing things.

 

[Newchodge]

You missed out the Federal system which applies across all states along with the system of accepting things across states - you get married in California then Maryland treats you as married.

You get married in China and the UK treats you as married!

 

[Mr D]

You get married in China and the UK treats you as married!

Neither of which is in the USA but yes the concept is the same.

Sort of breaks down when trying to shoehorn the 2nd, 3rd and 4th wife a man has legally married elsewhere in the world into the UK benefits system.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

And how could it be achieved without further loss of freedom?

It really depends on what you call freedom. The EU is providing its citizens with far more benefits and freedoms that the Brexiter MPs are planning for the UK.

 

[Mr D]

It really depends on what you call freedom. The EU is providing its citizens with far more benefits and freedoms that the Brexiter MPs are planning for the UK.

That apparently didn't matter enough in the vote over 2 years ago. Other concerns were more important perhaps.
You can of course, at this moment in time, go elsewhere in the EU to take advantage of this benefits and freedom.
Such freedom and benefits that apparently businesses in Paris were asked to close up for the day due to possibility of riots. Perhaps you need to educate those protesting / rioting about the freedoms and benefits they enjoy.