** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[pete75]

The whole point is that there isn't a middle ground. Leavers and remainers are each on the opposite sides of a binary decision.

The referendum was binary but the options aren't. It is only since the referendum that anyone has pretended it is binary. Before the referendum, prominent leavers were promising, variously, Norway, Canada, A customs union, THE customs union, the single market and other bespoke deals. They were promising nothing would change for EU citizens in the UK. Since the referendum, however, Theresa May has imagine lots of red lines, and the same leavers are advocating no deal (or 'WTO rules', whatever they are). Few of them have said a word in defence of EU citizens here, or UK citizens in the EU.

The result of the referendum was hijacked by extremists who had said nothing about their true plans until after the vote. If Brexit doesn't happen, it will be down to them and their dishonesty.

The options now are binary.
The prominent leavers you refer to were not in a position to promise anything and more fool those who believe them. What middle ground is there?

[bovlomov]

The prominent leavers you refer to were not in a position to promise anything and more fool those who believe them. What middle ground is there?

The options are:
1) Leaving without any deal. 2) PM's Withdrawal Agreement 3) Asking EU for an extension of A50, probably dependent on a General election of referendum - leaving all options on the table. 4) Revocation of A50.

Option 3 could lead us to the middle ground as defined before the referendum: i.e. what most Leave promoters were advertising. But, I admit, having trashed our reputation, it might be difficult negotiating a middle path with trade partners.

It has suited hard Brexiters to frame this as a binary choice, where anything less than No Deal is treason. That's because they are lunatics. I'm hoping the majority of MPs disregard the high octane rhetoric that those Brexiters been spouting for two years, and make their decisions as if it was 24th June 2016. (Blimey! What a waste of energy.)

[pete75]

The prominent leavers you refer to were not in a position to promise anything and more fool those who believe them. What middle ground is there?

The options are:
1) Leaving without any deal. 2) PM's Withdrawal Agreement 3) Asking EU for an extension of A50, probably dependent on a General election of referendum - leaving all options on the table. 4) Revocation of A50.

Option 3 could lead us to the middle ground as defined before the referendum: i.e. what most Leave promoters were advertising. But, I admit, having trashed our reputation, it might be difficult negotiating a middle path with trade partners.

It has suited hard Brexiters to frame this as a binary choice, where anything less than No Deal is treason. That's because they are lunatics. I'm hoping the majority of MPs disregard the high octane rhetoric that those Brexiters been spouting for two years, and make their decisions as if it was 24th June 2016. (Blimey! What a waste of energy.)

Option 3 - back to cake and eat it. The EU will not allow that.

[pwa]

I didn't vote for thuggery. I didn't vote for Farage or Boris either. I did know that a minority with unsavoury views would vote the same way as me, but I didn't want that to stop me voting the way I wanted to, for my reasons and not theirs.

Let's say there was a second referendum next week. How would you vote? Remain, of course. But that would probably trigger right wing yobs to do things you and I would not want to happen. Would knowing that change the way you vote? Of course not. It is the same with me. I vote for what I believe in. I didn't vote for yobbish behaviour and you wouldn't either. We can stand together as democrats defending free speech or we can just divide again as Remain / Leave.

This is the major problem

There is a reasonable, intelligent and pragmatic middle ground that is being threatened, dismissed and denied s voice by the extremists

The whole point is that there isn't a middle ground. Leavers and remainers are each on the opposite sides of a binary decision.

I think it is time to break up that binary split and for a cross-party search for a softer Brexit that is less troublesome for Europhiles but still meets a lot of what many Leave supporters want. Staying in a customs union, perhaps, but ending free movement of labour.

[thirdcrank]

To use a different metaphor, you can't have your bun and ʔhae'penny.

ʔ= glottal stop

[bovlomov]

Option 3 - back to cake and eat it. The EU will not allow that.

Before the referendum, many leavers were on record supporting the customs union and the single market. Some even supported free movement. That would be acceptable to the EU. Generously, I define the middle ground as what Johnson, Patterson, Gove and Hannan were telling us they wanted, in June 2016.

[Cours]

Option 3 - back to cake and eat it. The EU will not allow that.

Before the referendum, many leavers were on record supporting the customs union and the single market. Some even supported free movement. That would be acceptable to the EU. Generously, I define the middle ground as what Johnson, Patterson, Gove and Hannan were telling us they wanted, in June 2016.

Staying in a customs union without free movement is a non starter, its Brexit fantasy football. Free movement its a prerequisite of any decent trade deal with the EU. Any divegence from that seems ridiculous, now that it's obvious the EU have us over a barrel. I can see the softest of soft brexits appearing in about 18 months time. By which point no one will really care, either about the 'will of the people', or even who is in power to implement it. They'll just be glad it's finished.

Your average Joe will simply be relieved all the nonsense is over and done with.

[bovlomov]

Option 3 - back to cake and eat it. The EU will not allow that.

Before the referendum, many leavers were on record supporting the customs union and the single market. Some even supported free movement. That would be acceptable to the EU. Generously, I define the middle ground as what Johnson, Patterson, Gove and Hannan were telling us they wanted, in June 2016.

Staying in a customs union without free movement is a non starter, its Brexit fantasy football. Which seems ridiculous now that it's cleat the EU have us over ac barrel. I can the softest of soft brexits appearing in about 18 months time. By which point no one really care, either about the 'will of the people', or even who in power to implement it.

Your average. Joe will simply be relieved its all over and done with.

Yes, I agree.

It's hard to find the middle ground between Remain and fantasy. Or even between soft Brexit and fantasy. The best we can do is find the middle ground between Remain and No Deal. Something like Norway, I think would be close. Trouble is, Norway might not want us.

[pete75]

Option 3 - back to cake and eat it. The EU will not allow that.

Before the referendum, many leavers were on record supporting the customs union and the single market. Some even supported free movement. That would be acceptable to the EU. Generously, I define the middle ground as what Johnson, Patterson, Gove and Hannan were telling us they wanted, in June 2016.

You define the middle ground as what someone like Owen Patterson said?
Would that be the same Patterson who is on the board of Leave Means Leave along with the likes of Peter Bone, Simon Heffer, vice chaired by NIgel Farage and with the likes of Rees-Mogg, David Davies, John Redwood and Ian Paisley junior amongst it's list of supporters. The views of such a man are far from the middle ground. He wants a no deal rather than even Theresa May's quite hard Brexit.

[bovlomov]

Option 3 - back to cake and eat it. The EU will not allow that.

Before the referendum, many leavers were on record supporting the customs union and the single market. Some even supported free movement. That would be acceptable to the EU. Generously, I define the middle ground as what Johnson, Patterson, Gove and Hannan were telling us they wanted, in June 2016.

You define the middle ground as what someone like Owen Patterson said?
Would that be the same Patterson who is on the board of Leave Means Leave along with the likes of Peter Bone, Simon Heffer, vice chaired by NIgel Farage and with the likes of Rees-Mogg, David Davies, John Redwood and Ian Paisley junior amongst it's list of supporters. The views of such a man are far from the middle ground. He wants a no deal rather than even Theresa May's quite hard Brexit.

Before the referendum, Paterson was recorded saying that we'd be mad to leave the single market. Hannan said similar, as of course have Gove and Johnson. In trying to define the middle ground, I'm triangulating between Remain, what Brexiters said before the referendum and No deal. As I said, that's generously giving Brexiters two of the three reference points (what they said then and what they say now).

[pete75]

Before the referendum, many leavers were on record supporting the customs union and the single market. Some even supported free movement. That would be acceptable to the EU. Generously, I define the middle ground as what Johnson, Patterson, Gove and Hannan were telling us they wanted, in June 2016.

You define the middle ground as what someone like Owen Patterson said?
Would that be the same Patterson who is on the board of Leave Means Leave along with the likes of Peter Bone, Simon Heffer, vice chaired by NIgel Farage and with the likes of Rees-Mogg, David Davies, John Redwood and Ian Paisley junior amongst it's list of supporters. The views of such a man are far from the middle ground. He wants a no deal rather than even Theresa May's quite hard Brexit.

Before the referendum, Paterson was recorded saying that we'd be mad to leave the single market. Hannan said similar, as of course have Gove and Johnson. In trying to define the middle ground, I'm triangulating between Remain, what Brexiters said before the referendum and No deal. As I said, that's generously giving Brexiters two of the three reference points (what they said then and what they say now).

They wanted to end free movement though. The single market is based on four principles the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour. It's impossible to stay in the single market without observing the four freedoms. Patterson would have known that so what he was saying was cack. All of them were telling lies in order to address valid points being made by the remain campaign. Once the referendum was won they dropped all those ideas which wouldn't have worked anyway.
There is no plausible or possible middle ground which doesn't involve keeping free movement.

[djnotts]

Two such diametrically opposed views of the world, of right and wrong, there can never be a middle ground. Straightforward moral distinction. Does one believe in peace or war? In human rights or the right of might and power? In unity or conflict? At at least an attempt at greater equality or in gross unhampered capitalism? In sufficient food for all or hungry toddlers at food banks? And so on. Reconciliation an illusion.

[pwa]

it would be possible for the UK to end free movement but remain in a customs union and have access to the single market in lots of areas. The EU negotiators have said that. So there is a position that has the UK outside the EU but more closely aligned to it than May's plan.

[bovlomov]

There is no plausible or possible middle ground which doesn't involve keeping free movement.

There's no middle ground between reality and fantasy, and while the fantasists are being indulged there can't be a compromise. Ignoring the fantasies, there may be something like pwa suggests (above), but that's likely to be fiendishly complicated and take years to negotiate.

In practice, free movement is the obvious solution. All it requires is for a UK government to admit that it already has the power to control immigration. So far, neither May nor Corbyn seem inclined.

[pwa]

Staying in a customs union comes close to solving the Irish border problem in one move.