Brexit negotiations

[Scott-Copywriter]

An interesting post I found on Quora from someone who seemingly lives and breathes the EU, but is not particularly enamoured with it either:

https://www.quora.com/Was-Brexit-a-bad-idea/answer/Ken-Mifsud-Bonnici

The first part of the post sums up how I feel regarding the UK's place in the world. For all our country's success and global influence, we are a small fish in a big pond when up against the likes of China, the USA, the EU and other blocs.

Big countries can sway the direction of the world on their own. Smaller countries have banded together to counteract that, which the EU has had great success with. And we are, for now, a leader at its table.

This is the main reason why I'm baffled at people wishing the EU's demise. On most issues, the world currently has a three-way power share. Without the EU, it becomes a two-way power share where Europe no longer has a collective opinion focused on what's best for Europe, or the abilities to enforce it as it currently does.

Yes, we may have more domestic control sans EU, but as the piece points out, the world is hyperconnected now to a level that may be underestimated by most. And as the writer says, the UK will inevitably give up a huge degree of its ability to affect the things that affect it. Within the EU we currently get what we want the vast majority of the time, and on international matters, we are backed by 27 other neighbours which combine into a fifth of global GDP, two nuclear powers and two permanent seats at the UN Security Council.

In my view, it's not a case of being weak to rely on the EU. It's more about using the EU to further our best interests, which we can do far better as a leading member.

 

[quikshop]

This is the main reason why I'm baffled at people wishing the EU's demise.

It's no secret that I voted for Brexit and I've set out my reasons previously, but I don't hear from friends or colleagues any desire to see the demise of the EU.

If anything it's a vocal reaction to the graceless way they've chosen to conduct themselves with frequent negative briefings and churlish statements unbefitting an organisation that seeks a comparable stature with the US government.

Yes, we may have more domestic control sans EU, but as the piece points out, the world is hyperconnected now to a level that may be underestimated by most.

There is no need for countries to belong to large monolithic blocks to benefit in a hyperconnected world. Our financial industry, our innovative science and medical industries, our Universities spinning out commercial innovations in industrial materials all of these are out-performing and will continue to do so in or out of the EU.

My question to you would be why the need to feel part of an undemocratic monolithic federal supranational organisation?

I too believe in the Gene Roddenberry vision of our future, but not one led by unassailable bureaucrats more akin to a politburo than a representative meritocracy anointed by the people.

There is a better way to structure a federal Europe, and it cannot be achieved from within.

 

[Mr D]

It's no secret that I voted for Brexit and I've set out my reasons previously, but I don't hear from friends or colleagues any desire to see the demise of the EU.

If anything it's a vocal reaction to the graceless way they've chosen to conduct themselves with frequent negative briefings and churlish statements unbefitting an organisation that seeks a comparable stature with the US government.



There is no need for countries to belong to large monolithic blocks to benefit in a hyperconnected world. Our financial industry, our innovative science and medical industries, our Universities spinning out commercial innovations in industrial materials all of these are out-performing and will continue to do so in or out of the EU.

My question to you would be why the need to feel part of an undemocratic monolithic federal supranational organisation?

I too believe in the Gene Roddenberry vision of our future, but not one led by unassailable bureaucrats more akin to a politburo than a representative meritocracy anointed by the people.

There is a better way to structure a federal Europe, and it cannot be achieved from within.

Sorry, which bit of the EU was undemocratic again?

 

[quikshop]

Sorry, which bit of the EU was undemocratic again?

No need to be sorry, it's only your fault EU power resides in un-elected bureaucrats and the European Banking Authority if you voted remain to keep the status quo.

The layer of "representative democracy" that is the European Parliament has more power than it used to, but it's still a talking shop under the Governance of the European Council.

The best commentary on this was from a Belgium academic who wanted the EU project to be driven as a project of the people rather than imposed on them from people who had never faced a public vote in their lives.

But those gifted power are unlikely to give it back willingly, Brexit in the long term is the best thing that can happen to the EU

 

[Mr D]

No need to be sorry, it's only your fault EU power resides in un-elected bureaucrats and the European Banking Authority if you voted remain to keep the status quo.

The layer of "representative democracy" that is the European Parliament has more power than it used to, but it's still a talking shop under the Governance of the European Council.

The best commentary on this was from a Belgium academic who wanted the EU project to be driven as a project of the people rather than imposed on them from people who had never faced a public vote in their lives.

But those gifted power are unlikely to give it back willingly, Brexit in the long term is the best thing that can happen to the EU

And now you blame people voting in a UK referendum 2 years ago for EU power residing in un-elected bureaucrats?
Wow, talk about applying your own ideology. Reality appears to be different.

Hate to break it to you but lots of decisions taken regarding you will be by unelected people. In the UK.
Have been since before you were born.

In this reality we elect people to represent us, often in meetings or politics. We don't elect people who make decisions for us.

 

[quikshop]

And now you blame people voting in a UK referendum 2 years ago for EU power residing in un-elected bureaucrats?
Wow, talk about applying your own ideology. Reality appears to be different.

Hate to break it to you but lots of decisions taken regarding you will be by unelected people. In the UK.
Have been since before you were born.

In this reality we elect people to represent us, often in meetings or politics. We don't elect people who make decisions for us.

When you were growing up didn't you learn that that two wrongs don't make a right!?

Rather than discuss the points I raised it's entirely typical of a remainer to attack the person and deflect. I guess sheep want to be led, no harm in it I suppose.

 

[Cobby]

If anything it's a vocal reaction to the graceless way they've chosen to conduct themselves with frequent negative briefings and churlish statements unbefitting an organisation that seeks a comparable stature with the US government.

I'm genuinely fascinated to see examples of this behaviour you keep referencing and, specifically, why it is less acceptable than the same behaviour displayed by our own government.

I follow as much as I can and pretty closely, and with each step I see the EU27 acting pretty rationally, democratically and in generally line with expectations, but frequently see the UK government acting erratically, dishonestly, underhandedly and, as you said, churlishly. If I've missed something here I'd love to know.

There is no need for countries to belong to large monolithic blocks to benefit in a hyperconnected world. Our financial industry, our innovative science and medical industries, our Universities spinning out commercial innovations in industrial materials all of these are out-performing and will continue to do so in or out of the EU.

Putting aside that outside of the EU (likely with No Deal) we'll be governed by a party of disaster capitalists, how do you see us leveraging this 'world-leading' innovation against economic super-powers in a global economy where we have no trading relationships or contracts?

My question to you would be why the need to feel part of an undemocratic monolithic federal supranational organisation?

We know you hate the EU, but your premise is faulty. Being part of a democratic supranational economic union however, that's very much in the UK's interests as it allows us to conduct international trade at a much higher and more complex level and with stronger enforcement of terms than we could manage as an independent nation.

 

[Mr D]

When you were growing up didn't you learn that that two wrongs don't make a right!?

Rather than discuss the points I raised it's entirely typical of a remainer to attack the person and deflect. I guess sheep want to be led, no harm in it I suppose.

Who attacked the person?
I replied to your points, if you cannot accept the reply that is not my problem.

Sure you are not confusing sheep with something else? My memories of sheep include a sheep dog herding them, not someone or something else leading them.
Been a few years since I did farm work though.

 

[Cobby]

When you were growing up didn't you learn that that two wrongs don't make a right!?

Rather than discuss the points I raised it's entirely typical of a remainer to attack the person and deflect. I guess sheep want to be led, no harm in it I suppose.

I don't think Mr D is a Remainer (he's certainly not representative of that on here), but don't be surprised that he won't address any points you make directly.
On the surface he appears to be playing devil's advocate but really he just posts a lot of very vague, often irrelevant tautologies that add little to discourse and in 18 months he's output three times the number of posts than other members that have been here a decade. (I think I've yet to see him make a cohesive argument on any issue that doesn't result in his endlessly moving of the goalposts or just avoiding the question. I'm not attacking him, just making an observation about his posting style and why it shouldn't bother you.)

Let's stick to the topic...

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

My question to you would be why the need to feel part of an undemocratic monolithic federal supranational organisation?

There is no need. That's the point. People are talking as if we need the EU and can't survive without them. Of course we can.

My point is that we can use the benefits and the leverage being a leading member of the EU can provide. We can use our membership to have a much greater impact on global affairs. We can, ultimately, have a greater affect on the things that affect us.

So what's the shame in taking it?

The power the EU provides is greatly understated a lot of the time. There's a huge amount of leverage to rival, or in some cases exceed, that of China and the US, which are multiple times larger than us alone in pretty much every way.

The only downside is that we must compromise with our 27 neighbours, and in some cases will not get exactly what we want. Although considering that we've voted in favour of 97% of European Parliament decisions over the past 20 years, it seems we do get our own way the vast majority of time anyway.

As a member of the EU, we also have much greater influence over our European neighbours, as while we must compromise with them, they must compromise with us.

So while we may have less domestic influence (at least in theory), we have much, much greater influence in Europe and across the world to fight for our interests.

To grossly paraphrase JFK, ask not what we can do for the EU, but what the EU can do for us.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

No need to be sorry, it's only your fault EU power resides in un-elected bureaucrats and the European Banking Authority if you voted remain to keep the status quo.

It all depends on how much you understand about how the UK democracy works and how things are done in the EU. Have you lobbied your MP or your MEP over issues which concern you? Have you worked on trade committees when changes in the law are proposed? My long experience has made me deeply cynical about the motives of the UK government, its MPs, Ministers and civil servants. Looking to the EU I see a much greater emphasis on improving things for the citizens rather than bowing to the will of big business.

We currently have yet another crisis over air pollution. Guess which government, with no democratic debate, worked hard to ensure that the EU proposals were weakened? Guess which government is conniving with the water companies to keep dumping shit on British beaches?

You might complain about EU bureaucracy but compared to any British local council it is a paragon of efficiency.

There is a lot of ignorance about the EU in Britain. My local newspaper has a column every week by three local MPs. Reporting on the activities of our MEPs is completely missing. The only mention of the EU is the occasional ill-informed rant from a UKIP supporter on the letters page. This is a region which receives millions of EU aid every year and yet the media ignores it.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Anti-Brexit campaigners have launched legal action to try to prevent the government taking the UK out of the EU on the grounds that the leave side cheated in the referendum.

 

[simon field]

Poor dears are appearing ever more desperate!

 

[Mr D]

Poor dears are appearing ever more desperate!

Couldn't win one way so trying another.
Democracy eh? They don't want it when it gives the 'wrong' result.

 

[simon field]

I don't know anybody who paid the slightest bit of attention to any of the laughable 'campaigns' to be honest!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44404045

Did anyone else know this? I confess I didn't.

The staunchly pro-Brexit editor of the Daily Mail has been replaced with Greig who is staunchly pro-EU.

I did think recently that the Daily Mail was unusually responsive in terms of reporting negative Brexit-related news. Now it makes sense.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Did anyone else know this? I confess I didn't.

Yes, I did though only an occasional Mail reader.

Will be interesting to see how an editorial policy way out of line with the readership develops.

 

[Cobby]

I don't know anybody who paid the slightest bit of attention to any of the laughable 'campaigns' to be honest!

Then you should expand your social "bubble" and talk to a wider variety of people. Loads of people I know listened to the campaigns. One guy down my local thinks we've actually already left the EU and, because he got a minor operation on the NHS in under a month, thinks its because of the extra £350m/week.

Also, the evidence disagrees with you:
"British public still believe Vote Leave ‘£350million a week to EU’ myth from Brexit referendum"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-brexit-lies...

Yes, I did though only an occasional Mail reader.

Will be interesting to see how an editorial policy way out of line with the readership develops.

The relationship between readers and the paper isn't as simple as "dog wags tail", there is also a lot of "tail wags dog" - the constant bombardment of hate from such publications in the past has radicalised people, including the man who assassinated the MP Jo Cox during the referendum.

The better question is, by the gradual introduction of more balanced content, how will the views of the readership change?

 

[Cobby]

Poor dears are appearing ever more desperate!

The current Prime Minister, while Home Secretary obstructed the Intelligence Services from investigating potential criminal activity and the involvement of hostile foreign powers in the affairs of the Leave campaign's primary benefactor.

The Electoral Commission referred evidence of criminal activity within the Leave campaign to the police who have, for unaccountable reasons they describe as "political sensitivities" (but is more likely described as "political pressure"), delayed the criminal investigations until it is arguably too late for their outcome to have any effect on the government's course of action.

The government, its financiers, and its insanely wealthy party members - i.e. the establishment - are taking a course of action supported by only a very small minority of the electorate in pushing for the hardest form of Brexit it can and continues to lie and misrepresent evidence to reach March 29th without any parliamentary oversight.

If anyone is comfortable with Brexit going ahead without looking into any of this then their motivation is not based in a rational desire for a secure democracy, or providing evidence-based policy that benefits the UK.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://news.sky.com/story/major-br...ks-uk-may-have-been-better-to-remain-11544655

Mr Banks also suggested he had changed his mind on Brexit, adding: "The corruption I have seen in British politics - the sewer that exists and the disgraceful behaviour of the government over what they are doing with Brexit and how they are selling out - means that if I had my time again I think we would have been better to probably Remain and not unleash these demons."

Life comes at you fast.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/there...xit-deal-as-brexiteers-fear-surrender-2018-11

I'd now put the chance of not agreeing a withdrawal deal at around 60%. Possibly 70%.

I'd be extremely surprised if the EU and Ireland agree on any kind of backstop that has a fixed end date or gives the UK the right to unilaterally withdraw. Neither of those provide the legal commitment to avoiding a hard border. They just kick the can down the road at best.

If the agreement is too strong, pro-leave MPs will rebel. If it's too weak, pro-remain MPs will rebel. We seem to be sleepwalking into a "take it or leave it" decision for our own MPs where they either accept the deal or risk walking away without one.

The question mark is how much of an appetite there is in the Commons for a no deal Brexit. It's difficult to see through the bluffs at this stage. I suspect, though, that in the event of MPs rejecting the deal, a second referendum will be very much on the cards.

PS: This plays quite well into May's hands too. She can happily continue to reject the idea of a second referendum, and then let some of her own MPs and those of other parties overrule her if they wish to do so. She still gets away with it.

 

[quikshop]

I suspect, though, that in the event of MPs rejecting the deal, a second referendum will be very much on the cards.

If a second peoples vote was on the cards it would only be about accepting or rejecting a deal. The question of our membership of the EU has already been decided, and barring a couple of leading questionnaires all of the serious surveys show that support for leaving or remaining in the EU has remained constant.

But you are right about May, she is duplicitous on a scale only Tony Blair achieved, and with her advisers is very cleverly maneuvering us towards a position in which the next General Election will become the defacto second EU referendum.

 

[Mr D]

If a second peoples vote was on the cards it would only be about accepting or rejecting a deal. The question of our membership of the EU has already been decided, and barring a couple of leading questionnaires all of the serious surveys show that support for leaving or remaining in the EU has remained constant.

But you are right about May, she is duplicitous on a scale only Tony Blair achieved, and with her advisers is very cleverly maneuvering us towards a position in which the next General Election will become the defacto second EU referendum.

Those calling for a new referendum appear to be divided about what it will do.
You want it to be a straight accept or reject of a deal. There appear to be others who want to run the same referendum we had again. And there are some who want 3 answers on the voting form.

Perhaps if those wanting another referendum were to first agree on what was wanted rather than simply agreeing on having a referendum.

 

[Cobby]

If a second peoples vote was on the cards it would only be about accepting or rejecting a deal. The question of our membership of the EU has already been decided, and barring a couple of leading questionnaires all of the serious surveys show that support for leaving or remaining in the EU has remained constant.

All reasonable debate around this subject has settled that the 2016 referendum was woefully lacking in detail and there's absolutely no version of Brexit currently on the table that could be argued as to represent the majority "Leave" vote. The government have no good mandate for their current course of action.

There is a small percentage of the Leave vote that have always wanted "No Deal / Cliff Edge" and that group has a big overlap with people who either actively misrepresent the EU or simply don't understand it as they are satisfied to just hate it.

The population largely agree that "Brexit is going badly" (this is different to the Remain/Leave question, and both polling groups and the amateurs in town centres are finding this) and that an informed People's Vote should be held. If the Leave crowd are so confident things haven't changed then the democratic exercise of asking the electorate shouldn't be an issue.

The only honest, rational argument I can see against the People's Vote is one of public expense, but even that's a weak argument against ensuring that our democratic systems remain sound.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

and barring a couple of leading questionnaires all of the serious surveys show that support for leaving or remaining in the EU has remained constant.

Funny you should mention that, as Channel 4 in partnership with Survation released the results of the biggest opinion poll of its kind by far yesterday (x10 the number of respondents compared to the average):

https://www.survation.com/brexit-what-the-nation-really-thinks-monday-5th-november-8pm-channel-4/

Having a second referendum choice between accepting the deal or remaining in the EU had the most support (43%). Even the choice of accepting the deal or re-opening negotiations had 39% support, with the choice of accepting the deal or leaving without one at 38%, the lowest of the three options.

The choice of only accepting the deal or leaving without one also had the highest level of opposition.

I don't think this is any great surprise, really. In 2016 we had a choice between remaining or leaving with an unknown outcome. Now it would be a choice between remaining or leaving with a known outcome. The avenue to leave with what we've given our elected Government the responsibility of negotiating would still be available if the public wishes to take it, along with the option of changing our minds if we prefer.

I mean let's be honest, back in 2016 there was very little talk of deals. It was much more about assuming we would get a deal and how it would vary in nature. Even the pro-leave side spoke frequently about the deal we could get that gives us the best of both worlds. It was one of their main drivers. The thought of leaving with no deal, and what that would entail, was rarely entertained.

As for the headline figure of that opinion poll, 54% of people would now vote to remain in the EU, with 46% voting to leave.

I'd say there's a pretty strong indication that the British people no longer want Brexit to happen. If that's the case, we'll be leaving the EU against the will of the majority as it is over two years later.

The choice now comes down to whether the politicians choose to give the public the outlet to make this opinion official. And if they do, whether they choose to provide the options that the majority of the public would like to decide between.

 

[quikshop]

Funny you should mention that, as Channel 4 in partnership with

It's important to understand the political slant of those involved with research. Channel 4 are unashamedly pro-EU, their flagship news programme with John Snow is vehemently anti-Brexit and who can forget their docudramas about the frightening prospect of UKIP gaining power.

Survation also have form with leaning to the left; they are the go-to polling company for the Mirror, a Labour supporting socialist publication, and of course they announced poll results (on behalf of The Mirror) claiming Ed Miliband won a leaders debate in 2015, and Jeremy Corbyn the most popular leader with voters!

I suppose we can all look to our echo chambers to re-enforce our views, but it doesn't carry weight in the forum of public debate.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

It's important to understand the political slant of those involved with research. Channel 4 are unashamedly pro-EU, their flagship news programme with John Snow is vehemently anti-Brexit and who can forget their docudramas about the frightening prospect of UKIP gaining power.

Survation also have form with leaning to the left; they are the go-to polling company for the Mirror, a Labour supporting socialist publication, and of course they announced poll results (on behalf of The Mirror) claiming Ed Miliband won a leaders debate in 2015, and Jeremy Corbyn the most popular leader with voters!

I suppose we can all look to our echo chambers to re-enforce our views, but it doesn't carry weight in the forum of public debate.

Sure, but we just have to take the subjective elements and decide based on probabilities:

1). Nothing indicates that the UK still wants to leave the EU, and many more opinion polls indicate that the UK has changed its mind. Take Yougov's poll on whether the UK thinks it was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questio...n-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/

Shortly after the referendum this tracked an opinion that matched the result, with more people saying we were right to leave than wrong (so it was correct at the beginning). Now, 47% say we were wrong to leave, with 41% saying we were right to leave. Not a million miles away from the 8% Survation gap.

2). Objective demographical changes will be swinging the country more towards remain as time goes on, with some of the heavily leave-leaning older generation passing on, and some of the heavily remain-leaning 16 and 17 year olds entering voting age. Of those who utterly refuse to change their mind and never have, there are now more remainers than leavers than there were two years ago.

3). Of the two Brexit options, very few people like the Chequers plan, and very few people like no deal either.

So I can use those three factors to judge that the UK probably wants to stay in the EU now, or I can go with this instead:

Anything that indicates the UK has changed its mind has some ulterior motive that eliminates its credibility.

I'll go with those first three factors. They just seem a bit more likely to me. We can't say for sure though, right? But there is something we could do that would give a definitive answer...

 

[Cobby]

It's important to understand the political slant of those involved with research. Channel 4 are unashamedly pro-EU, their flagship news programme with John Snow is vehemently anti-Brexit and who can forget their docudramas about the frightening prospect of UKIP gaining power.

Survation also have form with leaning to the left; they are the go-to polling company for the Mirror, a Labour supporting socialist publication, and of course they announced poll results (on behalf of The Mirror) claiming Ed Miliband won a leaders debate in 2015, and Jeremy Corbyn the most popular leader with voters!

I suppose we can all look to our echo chambers to re-enforce our views, but it doesn't carry weight in the forum of public debate.

Incidentally, have you examined the data or methodology? Larger groups, in order to maintain their reputation are quite transparent about their methodologies, margins and any adjustments for bias.

I could share your scepticism if it was simply a tabloid poll, but this is a bit more than that.

 

[quikshop]

Actually as a Brexit voter I think the Chequers plan is very good. A no deal plan is fine as well, the scare-mongering has been reminiscent of the Millennium Bug nearly 19 years ago

Your post reads more like wishful thinking and there's nothing wrong with that. But most surveys still show unwavering support for Brexit with Brexit voters. Other than the politically motivated surveys nothing appears to have changed. That is a reflection of the appalling quality of the debate on both sides, nothing but fear from the remainers and populist emotive one-liners from the brexiteers.

I personally haven't seen anyone in my social or business circles change their mind whether remainer or brexit voter, but most of us agree that other than a surcharge on travelling to Europe and some annoying bureaucracy nothing in our lives will change.

And... in a generations time we'll be back in but hopefully in a remodelled Europe that accepts national identity as a positive and celebrates our differences in a family of nations, and not this horrendous project to homogenise us under an untouchable politburo.

One can hope

 

[The Byre]

most of us agree that other than a surcharge on travelling to Europe and some annoying bureaucracy nothing in our lives will change.

Actually one major thing in your life and in the lives of your children and grandchildren will change. You will be confined to living and working in the UK.

I made my fortune by leaving the UK. Ever since joining the Common Market, millions of Brits have been wandering across Europe, setting up companies, running bars, building houses, working in the media - you name it and we've been doing it.

The UK is a great place to live if you have money. But if you are poor, it grinds you down mercilessly. Criminal records blight lives for ever. Car defects can cost the driver his/her license. Even something like being a perceived nuisance for your neighbours can cause a family to be evicted. Job security at the bottom of the ladder is zero. And if your dog is the wrong breed, no matter how tame and harmless it may be, it will be put down.

No rent control, no adequate pension and houses priced so high that no working family can afford to buy a home and renovate it. Consumer laws that are laughably lax and no limit on debt interest rates. These are things that keep the poor poor.

If this inadequate joke of a government manage to wheedle Brexit through, your children and your children's children will be stuck here, rather like the children that grew up in East Germany.

I and my family can leave. Yours can't. There is a wealth of opportunity, social as well as money making opportunities in places like Roumania and Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe - opportunities that you seek to deny your descendants.

 

[quikshop]

Actually one major thing in your life and in the lives of your children and grandchildren will change. You will be confined to living and working in the UK.

Your entire post is almost but not quite as ludicrous as the SNP claiming the evil Tories in London were going to bomb Scottish airports during the Indie campaign

But I am looking forward to smuggling home a pot of goulash for my family as we shelter under the bombed out bridges of old Shrewsbury town, and begging copper coins from Eastern European migrants.

Perhaps don't buy a well behaved attack dog next time, and those evil Tories will let it live?

 

[The Byre]

Your entire post is almost but not quite as ludicrous as the SNP claiming the evil Tories in London were going to bomb Scottish airports during the Indie campaign

Have you ever lived outside of England?

 

[Cobby]

Actually as a Brexit voter I think the Chequers plan is very good. A no deal plan is fine as well, the scare-mongering has been reminiscent of the Millennium Bug nearly 19 years ago

The evidence of the damage that "No Deal" will cause is overwhelming. The consensus of experts across industry supports this. Even the government's own studies show that to be the case. Why are you so averse to evidence?

As for the Millennium Bug, that was a problem properly foreseen and upon which billions of pounds and hundreds of thousands of engineer hours was spent making sure the problem would cause no issue. Evidence was weighed. Experts were listened to.
The "No Deal" scenario we are headed for was not talked about, not explained to voters, nobody can plan properly for it and the government can't even decide if they going to try to properly plan for it. As metaphors go, the Y2K bug is almost the literal opposite of this situation.

but most of us agree that other than a surcharge on travelling to Europe and some annoying bureaucracy nothing in our lives will change.

Again, there is little to no evidence to support this belief. To hold this view at this stage is tantamount to a religious belief.

 

[quikshop]

Have you ever lived outside of England?

We have as has one of my off-spring. We came from very humble beginnings that would have made good viewing on a Channel 5 poverty porn show, so I know were I might speak on this.

How does your bleak post-apocolyptic view of life in the UK for the poor compare to your view of the desperately poor in Spain, France, Italy, Greece etc?

Which European country has 25% youth unemployment? And it's not Greece, that'sa lot higher.

What do you think is going to stop the poorer families still cramming onto EasyJet pods every July for a week of Euro fun? A 10 Euro surcharge on travel? I don't think so, it'll just cause more resentment towards the EU from those directly and negatively impacted by inwards migration of unskilled labour.

Home ownership? Ask the French about buying a house of their own. Ask the Greeks about prospects for their children and grand-children.

The World economy not just the UK and Europes depends on those relationships and opportunities existing after Brexit, so if the EU want to cut off its own nose then the whole World will suffer in the short term.

I'm not worried one bit about post-Brexit Britain, we'll do just fine and for most people they'll still be rich, poor and everything in between as they are now.

 

[Cobby]

And... in a generations time we'll be back in but hopefully in a remodelled Europe that accepts national identity as a positive and celebrates our differences in a family of nations, and not this horrendous project to homogenise us under an untouchable politburo.

This is the bit I find most galling. (Warning, stepping away from logic and facts for this one: emotion incoming! )

The young people I speak to are appalled and utterly despondent that their rights and futures are being stripped from them. Brexiteers hand-wave this a lot, "well they can just get jobs in the UK or a visa like everyone else" without a jot of concern for the hassle, the cost and, frequently, the literal impossibility of some choices being taken from young people. Most won't care because they are choices they have never wanted to make for themselves.

And what's worse is that these young people will spend the majority of their lives in a struggling economy, working to try and get the UK back to a level of prosperity we currently have but are choosing to throw away.

The sheer arrogance of Brexiteers to want this, to shrug at their own privilege and put the burden of effort upon somebody else, especially those Brexiteers who flat refuse to examine the evidence of the situation... It is disgusting and the early signs of this is part of what swung me from "I don't know" to "Remain".

 

[Mr D]

Your entire post is almost but not quite as ludicrous as the SNP claiming the evil Tories in London were going to bomb Scottish airports during the Indie campaign

But I am looking forward to smuggling home a pot of goulash for my family as we shelter under the bombed out bridges of old Shrewsbury town, and begging copper coins from Eastern European migrants.

Perhaps don't buy a well behaved attack dog next time, and those evil Tories will let it live?

You ever been through Glasgow airport?
Threats to bomb it would get some support for the Tories!

Shrewsbury is nice enough, there's a little fine spirits shop just up the road from the abbey. Keep you warm under the bridges.

 

[quikshop]

You ever been through Glasgow airport?
Threats to bomb it would get some support for the Tories!

Yes, one of my best friends is a martial arts instructor in Glasgow!

Shrewsbury is nice enough, there's a little fine spirits shop just up the road from the abbey. Keep you warm under the bridges.

Next time you're there pop into Peaberrys for a coffee and spot of breakfast... top notch food

 

[simon field]

The young people I speak to are appalled and utterly despondent that their rights and futures are being stripped from them.

Are they? I mean, really - are they?

So why do you think didn't they bother turning out to vote in adequate numbers?

 

[Mr D]

Are they? I mean, really - are they?

So why do you think didn't they bother turning out to vote in adequate numbers?

Perhaps they did vote. Just other people disagreed with them to such an extent the other side won.

Two sides to a referendum. Always going to be one side getting the result they don't want. In a democratic society that is normal.
Perhaps over the course of the next few decades they can convince sufficient of their fellow voters of the rightness of their course and they can win a later vote then.
We've seen it happen before.
Multiple times.

Just by that time there may well be some other groups who do not agree with the result of the later vote as it goes against what these other groups want.

 

[Cobby]

Are they? I mean, really - are they?

So why do you think didn't they bother turning out to vote in adequate numbers?

Well some weren't even old enough to vote, so that would be the biggest barrier. For the older voters, other factors that have come up in conversation are:

• Awareness: A lack of awareness of the consequences of the vote (this is true of most of the population)
  
• Belief in our institutions: Assurances that leaving the EU wouldn't mean losing their rights
• Belief in the system: Assuming the governing bodies wouldn't actively seek to make their lives worse.
• Gravity: I know a few people who said they voted Leave "as a joke, because, I mean, nobody thought that'd actually win", and when young people are involved in those discussions, where foregone conclusions are discussed by people they trust, remove the gravity of the need to vote.
• Experience: From the reduction in Public Services through to Tuition Fees to House Prices and rental costs, young people have an innate awareness that The System is not set up to cater to their needs and that historically, voting (especially with backward systems like FPTP) doesn't help them.

There are probably more but those are the main ones that have cropped up in conversations I've had.

Now, your instinct is probably going to be to attempt to shoot those down and argue against them one at a time, but that would just be missing the whole point and is really little more than victim blaming.