4 ms·

"the majority (albeit slim) said "we want out"." The point is that isn't really actionable, it isn't a plan. Hard Brexit was discussed, soft Brexit was discus

"the majority (albeit slim) said "we want out"." The point is that isn't really actionable, it isn't a plan. Hard Brexit was discussed, soft Brexit was discussed, BRINO, Norway plus. Everyone voted for their own preferred Brexit, so now we're in the situation on which Brexit to implement, and no one can agree, so which Brexit to go for? And I would like to point out that no deal Brexit was never seriously discussed in the run up to the referendum, so there isn't a mandate for that. We were though promised that we would be able to leave the EU, keep access to the common market, and save ourselves £350 million a week, in what would be the 'easiest trade deal in human history'.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
It was never seriously discussed because Theresa May didn't believe in it. Now that there will be an actual supporter in charge, you'll probably see more action on it.
- smcl 7y ago
  What does that matter? The point was that "hard brexit" wasn't raised as a real possibility by the Leave campaign before the referendum (in fact hard vs soft wasn't even a thing before the vote). The campaign was based on promises of a lovely favourable trade deals and a hybrid in-and-yet-out where it suited us arrangement. The fact that Boris is PM and he's A-OK with hard brexit doesn't change any of that. And I don't know what "more action" we could see - it is by very definition the zero-action option.
  - benj111 7y ago
    Nit. Hard Brexit is moving further away from Europe compared to a soft Brexit which would be something like Norway or closer. What Teresa May was offering was a hard Brexit. What Boris is proposing is a no deal Brexit https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/ https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/
Thiez 7y ago
> We were though promised that we would be able to leave the EU, keep access to the common market, and save ourselves £350 million a week, in what would be the 'easiest trade deal in human history'. If it sounds to good to be true, it usually is. Surely it isn't the case that more than half the voters really believed Brexit was going to be that easy?
- smcl 7y ago
  Maybe not all of the Leave voters believed it would be that easy, but enough did. Or alternatively at least bought some of what the Leave campaign were selling - the "we send £350m a week ..." stuff was a big one
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  The Murdoch press and their shills plus some of the other tabloids relentlessly and over decades systematically trashed the European project with lies, half-truth and other unsavory tactics. How, exactly, do you expect a populace to make an informed decision under such a relentless assault?
- benj111 7y ago
  Slightly less than half of voters voted for a concrete thing, slightly more than half voted for anything else. Its like the tax cut someone else mentioned. Sure 52% of the population could vote in favour, are all of those going to vote in favour of a tax cut for the rich? Or a tax cut for the poor? Or for low carbon technologies? Or to support the coal mining industry. And because there wasn't a 'plan' for Brexit there wasn't a decent conversation on any Brexit plan. You couldn't pin down the Brexiteers because as soon as you suggested that leaving the common market would damage the economy, they'd tell you we could stay in the common market. To answer your question more directly, I don't think the level of integration was appreciated, Northern Ireland wasn't discussed at all. Further than that I'm not sure you can say anything about all Brexit voters because its such a broad church, as it was never defined.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago

It was never seriously discussed because Theresa May didn't believe in it. Now that there will be an actual supporter in charge, you'll probably see more action on it.

smcl 7y ago
What does that matter? The point was that "hard brexit" wasn't raised as a real possibility by the Leave campaign before the referendum (in fact hard vs soft wasn't even a thing before the vote). The campaign was based on promises of a lovely favourable trade deals and a hybrid in-and-yet-out where it suited us arrangement. The fact that Boris is PM and he's A-OK with hard brexit doesn't change any of that. And I don't know what "more action" we could see - it is by very definition the zero-action option.
- benj111 7y ago
  Nit. Hard Brexit is moving further away from Europe compared to a soft Brexit which would be something like Norway or closer. What Teresa May was offering was a hard Brexit. What Boris is proposing is a no deal Brexit https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/ https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/

Thiez 7y ago

> We were though promised that we would be able to leave the EU, keep access to the common market, and save ourselves £350 million a week, in what would be the 'easiest trade deal in human history'. If it sounds to good to be true, it usually is. Surely it isn't the case that more than half the voters really believed Brexit was going to be that easy?

smcl 7y ago
Maybe not all of the Leave voters believed it would be that easy, but enough did. Or alternatively at least bought some of what the Leave campaign were selling - the "we send £350m a week ..." stuff was a big one
CaptainZapp 7y ago
The Murdoch press and their shills plus some of the other tabloids relentlessly and over decades systematically trashed the European project with lies, half-truth and other unsavory tactics. How, exactly, do you expect a populace to make an informed decision under such a relentless assault?
benj111 7y ago
Slightly less than half of voters voted for a concrete thing, slightly more than half voted for anything else. Its like the tax cut someone else mentioned. Sure 52% of the population could vote in favour, are all of those going to vote in favour of a tax cut for the rich? Or a tax cut for the poor? Or for low carbon technologies? Or to support the coal mining industry. And because there wasn't a 'plan' for Brexit there wasn't a decent conversation on any Brexit plan. You couldn't pin down the Brexiteers because as soon as you suggested that leaving the common market would damage the economy, they'd tell you we could stay in the common market. To answer your question more directly, I don't think the level of integration was appreciated, Northern Ireland wasn't discussed at all. Further than that I'm not sure you can say anything about all Brexit voters because its such a broad church, as it was never defined.