Past The Point Of No Return?

[Marshwarble]

If the government came up with concrete policies against immigration, fishing policy, etc, would you consider that Brexit wouldn't need to happen?

[Baldric]

Absolutely not.
Do you have a Link to any proposals or is this just 'chat?'

[Zacs-Master]

I don't think you quite understand the situation MW. There's this thing called the EU which, presently, have a say in these things, which was the whole point of the vote.

[andy-hughes]

No - because the main reason why the populace voted to leave the EU is the free movement of migrants, and the perceived law-making by unelected European bureaucrats.

[Marshwarble]

Can you enlighten me if the government can make laws against immigration or fishing without consulting the EU?

[jim360]

"The main reason people decided to leave the EU" always seems different depending on who's answering -- and coincidentally always seems to coincide with that person's own reasons.

Anyway, I should say it's a bit late now to try and find a Bremain cop-out. Try and shape Brexit, for sure, but accept that the result in 2016 stands.

[Marshwarble]

Surely the EU can't make rules specific for the Channel Tunnel for instance?

[-Talbot-]

Surely the EU can't make rules specific for the Channel Tunnel for instance?



What are you talking about?

[andy-hughes]

Marshwarble - In terms of its immigration policy, the UK will not be required to receive approval from the EU, which was something of a driving force in getting the UK out of the EU in the first place.

As far as fishing rights, where territorial waters are involved, then yes, negations will be required, but the UK can now negotiate as a separate entity, which will give it a far greater bargaining position that if it simply had to go along with what the EU decided because the UK was a member, with no choice.

[Marshwarble]

The EU can't say the fence around the tunnel can't be six foot high for instance. This seems self explanatory to me.

BTW this question is to find out how much a leaver you are, so it should be different for everybody?

[cassa333]

No. Because Bretix is more than just a few fishing policies and migration, that we are not allowed to make unilateral decisions on in any case.

DC did his best to get changes and they were not worth the fag packet they were scrawled hastily on the back of. So a meaningful renegotiation is not possible. Anyone who thinks soft Bretix is possible without HUGE compromises and payments on our part is in coud Cuckoo land.

[ToraToraTora]

you mean like Cameron tried to do before all this? You cannot trust the EUSSR, we have a mandate to leave, end of.

[Zacs-Master]

I would be very interested to hear which way MW voted.

[New Judge]

"...would you consider that Brexit wouldn't need to happen?"

Simple answer - No.

Complex answer - No, definitely not.

[david small]

No, no way, not on your nelly, don't make me laugh.

[Old_Geezer]

No.
A country either controls itself or it is a sham of a nation and an embarrassment to it's citizens.

[jourdain2]

No. The result was about the desire for Democracy and Sovereignty. Only by reclaiming these can any government make its own policy .

[andy-hughes]

OK, on that basis - since negotiating with the EU has landed us in a bureaucratic nightmare of limitless immigration, and laws made and enforced from Brussels, I think that the UK government's policies, concrete or otherwise, would always have to be run past and ratified by the EU, so I for one am delighted that we are escaping at last.