6 ms·

However the majority of the people who voted (and remember here that the turnout was higher than most UK elections) voted to exit which clearly included border

However the majority of the people who voted (and remember here that the turnout was higher than most UK elections) voted to exit which clearly included border controls. Border controls cannot be achieved without leaving the single market, so if we're honouring the democratic process this is the only possible path.

gpderetta 10y ago
The was no reference to border control in the referendum ballot.
- raesene6 10y ago
  it was a key stated pledge of the leave campaign, so unless you were watching some other referendum campaign the suggestion that border control had nothing to do with it is disingenuous at best. In case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referendum-reality-check-leave-campaign-promises https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
  - Chestofdraw 10y ago
    > it was a key stated pledge of the leave campaign Which leave campaign? There was a few of them and they didn't give a consistent message. None actually have any power to implement anything so how can they make pledges anyway? Also, that link has the picture of the bus as the first image... a 'pledge' completely based on lies that was dropped literally minutes after the vote.
    - raesene6 10y ago
      Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe that a big part (if not the key part) of the leave campaign (pick any one you like) wasn't about immigration and border control?
      - Chestofdraw 10y ago
        I'll tell you what, we can talk about the efficacy of the various leave campaigns when the NHS gets its 350 million a day and we have 'Sovereignty'.
        raesene6 10y ago
        I note that I'm afraid you didn't even attempt to answer my extremely straightforward question. See I'm not a brexiter/leaver/whatever (Personally I think it's a terrible idea), but it's blindingly obvious to me that a lot of leave voters (maybe even the vast majority) thought the main issue was immigration and that Mrs May had a choice either exit the single market, or basically ignore the result of the referendum, she chose the former and not the latter.
        gpderetta 10y ago
        Soft brexit (i.e. EEA-like access) plus spend the next 10 years figuring out a better exit deal would have been an option. UK spent 40 year entangling with the EU, disentangling cleanly in 2 years is a pipe dream. It is still a possibility though; declaring for hard brexit could very well be a negotiating tactic (as in 'nothing left to lose') as May hinted to the possibility of a transitional agreement.
        raesene6 10y ago
        I entirely agree the 2 year timeline is massively unrealistic (downside to something being written in a treaty agreement with no intention of it ever being excercised) The challenge for me is that soft-brexit is basically no brexit 'cause EEA access == sign-up to the four fundamental freedoms and accept the primacy of EU law, which seems to cover most of the things that the leave campaign wanted to get rid of. As you say this could well be a negotiating tactic though, and no-one will really know until they start the negotiations. I think it's entirely possible that once the details are fleshed out people might seek to change it.
        10y ago
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    Is it the same article that claims that the leave campaign also promised access to the single market and that reports that the foreign secretary declared that 'the leave campaign had made “contradictory” and “mutually incompatible” promises to the British people'?
    - raesene6 10y ago
      Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe that a big part (if not the key part) of the leave campaign (pick any one you like) wasn't about immigration and border control?

gpderetta 10y ago

The was no reference to border control in the referendum ballot.

raesene6 10y ago
it was a key stated pledge of the leave campaign, so unless you were watching some other referendum campaign the suggestion that border control had nothing to do with it is disingenuous at best. In case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referendum-reality-check-leave-campaign-promises https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
- Chestofdraw 10y ago
  > it was a key stated pledge of the leave campaign Which leave campaign? There was a few of them and they didn't give a consistent message. None actually have any power to implement anything so how can they make pledges anyway? Also, that link has the picture of the bus as the first image... a 'pledge' completely based on lies that was dropped literally minutes after the vote.
  - raesene6 10y ago
    Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe that a big part (if not the key part) of the leave campaign (pick any one you like) wasn't about immigration and border control?
    - Chestofdraw 10y ago
      I'll tell you what, we can talk about the efficacy of the various leave campaigns when the NHS gets its 350 million a day and we have 'Sovereignty'.
      - raesene6 10y ago
        I note that I'm afraid you didn't even attempt to answer my extremely straightforward question. See I'm not a brexiter/leaver/whatever (Personally I think it's a terrible idea), but it's blindingly obvious to me that a lot of leave voters (maybe even the vast majority) thought the main issue was immigration and that Mrs May had a choice either exit the single market, or basically ignore the result of the referendum, she chose the former and not the latter.
        gpderetta 10y ago
        Soft brexit (i.e. EEA-like access) plus spend the next 10 years figuring out a better exit deal would have been an option. UK spent 40 year entangling with the EU, disentangling cleanly in 2 years is a pipe dream. It is still a possibility though; declaring for hard brexit could very well be a negotiating tactic (as in 'nothing left to lose') as May hinted to the possibility of a transitional agreement.
        raesene6 10y ago
        I entirely agree the 2 year timeline is massively unrealistic (downside to something being written in a treaty agreement with no intention of it ever being excercised) The challenge for me is that soft-brexit is basically no brexit 'cause EEA access == sign-up to the four fundamental freedoms and accept the primacy of EU law, which seems to cover most of the things that the leave campaign wanted to get rid of. As you say this could well be a negotiating tactic though, and no-one will really know until they start the negotiations. I think it's entirely possible that once the details are fleshed out people might seek to change it.
        10y ago
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- gpderetta 10y ago
  Is it the same article that claims that the leave campaign also promised access to the single market and that reports that the foreign secretary declared that 'the leave campaign had made “contradictory” and “mutually incompatible” promises to the British people'?
  - raesene6 10y ago
    Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe that a big part (if not the key part) of the leave campaign (pick any one you like) wasn't about immigration and border control?