FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Dominic Cummings: how the Brexit referendum was won
Dominic Cummings: how the Brexit referendum was won
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"And yet they all think they formed their own opinions " did you think you formed yours? | |||
| |||
"If there had been no campaign the result would have been the same but probably by a bigger margin" How do you come to that conclusion? You think the Vote Leave campaign was detrimental to the leave vote? -Matt | |||
"If there had been no campaign the result would have been the same but probably by a bigger margin How do you come to that conclusion? You think the Vote Leave campaign was detrimental to the leave vote? -Matt" no, I think people already knew which way they would vote. And if people were 'daft' enough to be swayed by that £350m then surely they would have been 'daft' enough to believe they would be £4300 worse off etc | |||
| |||
"Or if people were fooled by the claims from both sides then at least you could say that leavers were thinking of others while remainers were thinking of themselves" I think most had made their mind up long before the subject of brexit came up | |||
"Or if people were fooled by the claims from both sides then at least you could say that leavers were thinking of others while remainers were thinking of themselves I think most had made their mind up long before the subject of brexit came up" Indeed when billionnaire, tax dodging newspaper owners have been undertaking a process of mass propaganda and fear for years it is no wonder that so many people had their minds shaped by fear of foreigners. The Daily mail has just been dropped by Wikipedia as a reliable source stating that it presented factually incorrect content. What took it so long to see that? | |||
"Or if people were fooled by the claims from both sides then at least you could say that leavers were thinking of others while remainers were thinking of themselves I think most had made their mind up long before the subject of brexit came up Indeed when billionnaire, tax dodging newspaper owners have been undertaking a process of mass propaganda and fear for years it is no wonder that so many people had their minds shaped by fear of foreigners. The Daily mail has just been dropped by Wikipedia as a reliable source stating that it presented factually incorrect content. What took it so long to see that? " ..you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. | |||
"Or if people were fooled by the claims from both sides then at least you could say that leavers were thinking of others while remainers were thinking of themselves I think most had made their mind up long before the subject of brexit came up Indeed when billionnaire, tax dodging newspaper owners have been undertaking a process of mass propaganda and fear for years it is no wonder that so many people had their minds shaped by fear of foreigners. The Daily mail has just been dropped by Wikipedia as a reliable source stating that it presented factually incorrect content. What took it so long to see that? " About bloody time.Still people dont like facts.So tell them lies .If thats what they want.  | |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. " What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway? | |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway?" ..in your multicultural wonderland immigrants don't commit crime. | |||
"If there had been no campaign the result would have been the same but probably by a bigger margin How do you come to that conclusion? You think the Vote Leave campaign was detrimental to the leave vote? -Matt no, I think people already knew which way they would vote. And if people were 'daft' enough to be swayed by that £350m then surely they would have been 'daft' enough to believe they would be £4300 worse off etc" If the 350 million was so obviously not important as is being claimed now. Why was it a main feature of the Leave campaign? It seems to me that all the claims to Leave are now being derided as "irrelevant to the ideas for leaving" Last week the sovereignty question was dismissed as being a red herring in the campaign after the Conservatives confirmed that Parliament has always been sovereign. So what about the claims of Parliament first, British laws... oops yes, well that wasn't relevant to the vote. Neither seemingly was it about immigration as Leavers predict a stronger economy than we have now. But with an ageing native population and reducing birth rates - it will be immigrants who will fuel this "boom." (Sic) So, not about 350 mill a week, not about Sovereignty, not about immigration - so what was it about? | |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway?..in your multicultural wonderland immigrants don't commit crime." I am struggling to see a change in Manchester or Liverpool that has anything to do with people arriving without consent (whatever that actually means). PS I have no expectation of you being able to answer. | |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway?..in your multicultural wonderland immigrants don't commit crime. I am struggling to see a change in Manchester or Liverpool that has anything to do with people arriving without consent (whatever that actually means). PS I have no expectation of you being able to answer." ..silly me.. Harking back to the days when my wife and friends could walk through our towns without being called white whores and trash by Muslim immigrants. | |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway?..in your multicultural wonderland immigrants don't commit crime. I am struggling to see a change in Manchester or Liverpool that has anything to do with people arriving without consent (whatever that actually means). PS I have no expectation of you being able to answer...silly me.. Harking back to the days when my wife and friends could walk through our towns without being called white whores and trash by Muslim immigrants. " You must be very unfortunate. I lived in Birmingham for ten years until last year, in mixed ethnicity areas. Not one single time did any Muslim or Asian person hassle me in all those years. The only times I would get any trouble were from other white guys. | |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway?..in your multicultural wonderland immigrants don't commit crime. I am struggling to see a change in Manchester or Liverpool that has anything to do with people arriving without consent (whatever that actually means). PS I have no expectation of you being able to answer...silly me.. Harking back to the days when my wife and friends could walk through our towns without being called white whores and trash by Muslim immigrants. " So how did Muslim immigrants arrive there without consent? I am not aware on an Muslim EU countries and anyone from outside the EU would have needed permission (or consent) as you call it. They must have arrived in a controlled manner with consents and permissions if they came from outside the EU. Dont worry, we will need lots more to be able to fuel the post Brexit boom in the economy that you and others promised us all. | |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway?..in your multicultural wonderland immigrants don't commit crime. I am struggling to see a change in Manchester or Liverpool that has anything to do with people arriving without consent (whatever that actually means). PS I have no expectation of you being able to answer...silly me.. Harking back to the days when my wife and friends could walk through our towns without being called white whores and trash by Muslim immigrants. You must be very unfortunate. I lived in Birmingham for ten years until last year, in mixed ethnicity areas. Not one single time did any Muslim or Asian person hassle me in all those years. The only times I would get any trouble were from other white guys. " Indeed. Birmingham is a great city BECAUSE it is so multi-cultural. Reminds me to get down to Sparkbrook next time I am there and see if Imrans is still there. Top Balti house. | |||
"If there had been no campaign the result would have been the same but probably by a bigger margin How do you come to that conclusion? You think the Vote Leave campaign was detrimental to the leave vote? -Matt no, I think people already knew which way they would vote. And if people were 'daft' enough to be swayed by that £350m then surely they would have been 'daft' enough to believe they would be £4300 worse off etc If the 350 million was so obviously not important as is being claimed now. Why was it a main feature of the Leave campaign? It seems to me that all the claims to Leave are now being derided as "irrelevant to the ideas for leaving" Last week the sovereignty question was dismissed as being a red herring in the campaign after the Conservatives confirmed that Parliament has always been sovereign. So what about the claims of Parliament first, British laws... oops yes, well that wasn't relevant to the vote. Neither seemingly was it about immigration as Leavers predict a stronger economy than we have now. But with an ageing native population and reducing birth rates - it will be immigrants who will fuel this "boom." (Sic) So, not about 350 mill a week, not about Sovereignty, not about immigration - so what was it about?" it was about controling our own money. It was about Sovereignty, we didn't have full Sovereignty under the EU as well you know. And it was about controlling immigration. Migrants aren't needed to 'fuel a boom', as you also know, low skilled manual jobs will become fewer due to technology. How has Japan grown with an ageing and decreasing population? | |||
 | |||
| |||
" It was about Sovereignty, we didn't have full Sovereignty under the EU as well you know. " In a section titled “taking control of our own laws”, the White Paper states: “The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.” Quite clearly, by admission, like the NHS pledge, this was another lie and you are still repeating it. Two of the 5 central tenets of the Leave campaign are utter lies. A third, the wish for the primacy of British Laws defended by British Judges was quickly also shown to be a lie by the response of the government and the UKIPpers to a perfectly legitimate, indeed vital, constitutional court case. The fourth, the economy, there are some positives that will come, but the public were again misled. Regardless of what is now said that it was made clear we would have to leave the single market, it really wasn't. Many people believed we would not HAVE to and voted accordingly. We are. Another betrayal. It was also strongly refuted that we wouldn't be able to get all our new trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world for years. Time will tell. Which leaves immigration. When everything comes out in the wash I rather suspect what will happen is that immigration levels barely change, or if it does we realise it harms the economy and a government is not qualified to judge our requirements better than the market and it would have been much better to have taken other measures in the minority of areas and sectors adversely affected. | |||
"A more serious question is why parliament voted against securing EU citizens right to remain here after Brexit I didn't see that one coming " Because it would have been stupid to do so. Rights of citizens after we leave is important and I personally believe they should have the right to stay. But also do the brits abroad. So putting it in our law as a one-sided giveaway would be foolish. It has to be part of the negotiation. Early on after Article 50, the rights of both sets should be secured. | |||
"A more serious question is why parliament voted against securing EU citizens right to remain here after Brexit I didn't see that one coming Because it would have been stupid to do so. Rights of citizens after we leave is important and I personally believe they should have the right to stay. But also do the brits abroad. So putting it in our law as a one-sided giveaway would be foolish. It has to be part of the negotiation. Early on after Article 50, the rights of both sets should be secured." My country is the one that at one time would have taken the high moral ground. I want that country back. | |||
" My country is the one that at one time would have taken the high moral ground. I want that country back." Great, but that will get us shafted in the negotiation. The moral thing for the UK and EU to do is to say on day 1 that the rights of existing residents will be respected. | |||
" My country is the one that at one time would have taken the high moral ground. I want that country back. Great, but that will get us shafted in the negotiation. The moral thing for the UK and EU to do is to say on day 1 that the rights of existing residents will be respected." And I expect that to happen the day after we trigger article 50. | |||
| |||
| |||
"We all know it was all based on lies, so where is the 350mill to the nhs a week? lol." The people running that brexit campaign weren't even in power so weren't and aren't in a position to give £350m/wk to the nhs. Even if they were, it would be post brexit, not now. | |||
" So, not about 350 mill a week, not about Sovereignty, not about immigration - so what was it about? it was about controling our own money. It was about Sovereignty, we didn't have full Sovereignty under the EU as well you know. And it was about controlling immigration. Migrants aren't needed to 'fuel a boom', as you also know, low skilled manual jobs will become fewer due to technology. How has Japan grown with an ageing and decreasing population?" Japan is a very good example of a country facing a very serious problem soon due to an ageing population. This has been widely reported for many years now. A random example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-31901943 "Today, more than a quarter of Japan's population is aged over 65. This is set to increase to 40% by 2055, when the population will have shrunk from the current 127 million to 90 million." "The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has warned that Japan will need to add one million nurses and care workers by 2025." ""What the government is doing is not going to address the serious population collapse that Japan faces," says Hidenori Sakanaka, executive director at Japan Immigration Policy Institute. "Japan needs 10 million immigrants over the next 50 years and we need to accept them as new members of our society," he says. "If we educate our young people that Japan needs to become more multiracial to tackle the population problem, I think we can achieve it without causing major problems."" Japan is very monocultural and they will have very serious questions about bringing in immigrants, but it is something they are going to have to face very soon. -Matt | |||
"We all know it was all based on lies, so where is the 350mill to the nhs a week? lol. The people running that brexit campaign weren't even in power so weren't and aren't in a position to give £350m/wk to the nhs. Even if they were, it would be post brexit, not now." They ALL had the opportunity to vote to make a that committment yesterday and they voted against it. Just to reiterate - Johnson, Gove and others stood in front of that bus and it was the driver of their campaign. Yesterday they had the opportunity to vote to cement that pledge into the Brexit deal - they actually voted against what they had campaigned for. | |||
| |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway?..in your multicultural wonderland immigrants don't commit crime. I am struggling to see a change in Manchester or Liverpool that has anything to do with people arriving without consent (whatever that actually means). PS I have no expectation of you being able to answer...silly me.. Harking back to the days when my wife and friends could walk through our towns without being called white whores and trash by Muslim immigrants. " Immigrants commit less crime than locals. First generation children are the same as locals. Belief and limited personal experience, which is by its nature limited, does not reflect the overall reality. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-10 Check out Hans Rosling on TED to get an idea of how much what you might think diverges from what the data reveals. | |||
"We all know it was all based on lies, so where is the 350mill to the nhs a week? lol. The people running that brexit campaign weren't even in power so weren't and aren't in a position to give £350m/wk to the nhs. Even if they were, it would be post brexit, not now. They ALL had the opportunity to vote to make a that committment yesterday and they voted against it. Just to reiterate - Johnson, Gove and others stood in front of that bus and it was the driver of their campaign. Yesterday they had the opportunity to vote to cement that pledge into the Brexit deal - they actually voted against what they had campaigned for." I think the amendment was to force the number to be calculated, not actually spend it. Either way, my general point is that the 'leave' campaigns(s) were a random grouping without authority or control to implement all these things. They were as bad as 'remain' in twisting facts and figures to their own ends. Everyone I know voted how they would have at the beginning of the campaign (50:50 between both). The shabby state of politics in this country has unfortunately left most people doubting whatever comes from all these peoples mouths. | |||
 | |||
"I posted a number of threads asking how Brexit would help improve various aspects of peoples lives on the UK. The NHS and social care Housing costs Increasing skills and improving education Generating well paid jobs The response from both sides was that it would-be no real difference. " Didn't see your posts on those, but I think lots of people would have strong comments on them all??? | |||
" I think the amendment was to force the number to be calculated, not actually spend it. Either way, my general point is that the 'leave' campaigns(s) were a random grouping without authority or control to implement all these things. They were as bad as 'remain' in twisting facts and figures to their own ends. Everyone I know voted how they would have at the beginning of the campaign (50:50 between both). The shabby state of politics in this country has unfortunately left most people doubting whatever comes from all these peoples mouths." The amendment was to get those who sold that particular nonsense to stand by it. They didn't. What the Leave campaign did was provide an official and non, official (Farage) campaign which got equal coverage. They then set about saying contradictory things allowing it to promise everything to everybody. Leave voters could then chose immigration control, keeping out Syrian refugees, staying in the free trade zone, leaving the free trade zone, and all manner of other things. The question on the ballot paper did not reflect this complexity but the referendum result includes the entire range of views. The outcome will be singular though. | |||
"I posted a number of threads asking how Brexit would help improve various aspects of peoples lives on the UK. The NHS and social care Housing costs Increasing skills and improving education Generating well paid jobs The response from both sides was that it would-be no real difference. Didn't see your posts on those, but I think lots of people would have strong comments on them all???" Well, they didn't. All the usual Brexit suspects posted. New opinions welcome though. | |||
"I posted a number of threads asking how Brexit would help improve various aspects of peoples lives on the UK. The NHS and social care Housing costs Increasing skills and improving education Generating well paid jobs The response from both sides was that it would-be no real difference. Didn't see your posts on those, but I think lots of people would have strong comments on them all??? Well, they didn't. All the usual Brexit suspects posted. New opinions welcome though." The problem with this forum (unfortunately) is that it is awash with people with un-budgeable views. They refuse to see any benefit or engage in any meaningful actual discussion if it detracts from their beginning position. The goal is to win an argument for 'their side' . I voted 'leave' and can see advantages and disadvantages to that in the list you have there, and for me the pros and cons of staying and leaving would put the balance in leaving. Others will see it differently, others completely black and white. The problem with 4 or 5 big issues listed, I'm not going to start a debate on any of them, because each one could be a 175 reply thread! But, I think leaving will give us a net benefit in all the things you've listed. | |||
" The problem with this forum (unfortunately) is that it is awash with people with un-budgeable views. They refuse to see any benefit or engage in any meaningful actual discussion if it detracts from their beginning position. The goal is to win an argument for 'their side' . I voted 'leave' and can see advantages and disadvantages to that in the list you have there, and for me the pros and cons of staying and leaving would put the balance in leaving. Others will see it differently, others completely black and white. The problem with 4 or 5 big issues listed, I'm not going to start a debate on any of them, because each one could be a 175 reply thread! But, I think leaving will give us a net benefit in all the things you've listed." I agree with the first part of your answer. I've asked a few time how to find a compromise that would help take the 48% who voted to remain along with Brexit. I'm generally told that I lost, should get behind Brexit and should leave the country if I don't like it. I'm a big boy so can cope
You have responded briefly as to your opinion on those answers which is fine in this context.
I have, and still do, remain persuadable as to potential benefits to leaving but for that to happen I need to understand the mechanism or process that could bring these about. Instead I am usually presented with an assertion which.
Debate is good. Shouting isn't.
Any idea how to help improve the dialogue because I think this fault line in the country may never heal which means this country will never fulfil it's potential  | |||
" Debate is good. Shouting isn't. Any idea how to help improve the dialogue because I think this fault line in the country may never heal which means this country will never fulfil it's potential "To be honest, I think the issue doesn't exist out in the country to the degree it does on here. There are some very loud mouths and vitriolic comments. I have never seen this outside of this forum. I have friends who are 100% remain believers and I've never come close to falling out with any of them. I haven't seen anybody else do it either. Even around the time, on a roudy night in the pub, people weren't punching each other over it. | |||
" To be honest, I think the issue doesn't exist out in the country to the degree it does on here. There are some very loud mouths and vitriolic comments. I have never seen this outside of this forum. I have friends who are 100% remain believers and I've never come close to falling out with any of them. I haven't seen anybody else do it either. Even around the time, on a roudy night in the pub, people weren't punching each other over it." That's because despite all of the shouting on here everyone has acknowledged that Brexit will happen. However, our government's stance is for hard Brexit. 48% of the population are not happy, but they are the soft liberal 48%. It doesn't mean that the resentment is not there. I think the anger will come if Brexit does not improve those things that I listed. It will actually come from those who voted to Leave. They were the most angry before and remain the most angry now as far as I can see. | |||
" They were as bad as 'remain' in twisting facts and figures to their own ends." Not even close to parity. " Everyone I know voted how they would have at the beginning of the campaign (50:50 between both)." 37.2% of those who voted 'always' knew, a further 6.1% made their mind up a year before the referendum and another 14.1% in the January. So 57.4% of the voters decided before the campaigns got under way. 18.3 decided in the last month of the campaign, 6.1% in the last week, 7.8% in the last few days and 9.9% on polling day. Close to 22% of the 52% that voted Brexit it seems were persuaded by the campaigns. " The shabby state of politics in this country has unfortunately left most people doubting whatever comes from all these peoples mouths." Indeed. One side was keen at appealing to logic, facts and reason. The other side more to emotion. There is no doubt Leave fought a more effective campaign but that doesn't mean it means the right decision was arrived at. Indeed, enough people now regret their decision that if run again it would be different. | |||
" They were as bad as 'remain' in twisting facts and figures to their own ends. Not even close to parity. Everyone I know voted how they would have at the beginning of the campaign (50:50 between both). 37.2% of those who voted 'always' knew, a further 6.1% made their mind up a year before the referendum and another 14.1% in the January. So 57.4% of the voters decided before the campaigns got under way. 18.3 decided in the last month of the campaign, 6.1% in the last week, 7.8% in the last few days and 9.9% on polling day. Close to 22% of the 52% that voted Brexit it seems were persuaded by the campaigns. The shabby state of politics in this country has unfortunately left most people doubting whatever comes from all these peoples mouths. Indeed. One side was keen at appealing to logic, facts and reason. The other side more to emotion. There is no doubt Leave fought a more effective campaign but that doesn't mean it means the right decision was arrived at. Indeed, enough people now regret their decision that if run again it would be different. " and in another survey it was found that 1 in 3 blokes were as thick as the other 2 | |||
" They were as bad as 'remain' in twisting facts and figures to their own ends. Not even close to parity. Everyone I know voted how they would have at the beginning of the campaign (50:50 between both). 37.2% of those who voted 'always' knew, a further 6.1% made their mind up a year before the referendum and another 14.1% in the January. So 57.4% of the voters decided before the campaigns got under way. 18.3 decided in the last month of the campaign, 6.1% in the last week, 7.8% in the last few days and 9.9% on polling day. Close to 22% of the 52% that voted Brexit it seems were persuaded by the campaigns. The shabby state of politics in this country has unfortunately left most people doubting whatever comes from all these peoples mouths. Indeed. One side was keen at appealing to logic, facts and reason. The other side more to emotion. There is no doubt Leave fought a more effective campaign but that doesn't mean it means the right decision was arrived at. Indeed, enough people now regret their decision that if run again it would be different. and in another survey it was found that 1 in 3 blokes were as thick as the other 2" ..  | |||
" They were as bad as 'remain' in twisting facts and figures to their own ends. Not even close to parity. " Ok fair enough. I'm not looking forward to George Osbornes emergency budget. Since the remain side argument was based on fact and leave side persuasion was based on emotion, the budget he calculated will be pretty hard on us. | |||
| |||
| |||
"If there had been no campaign the result would have been the same but probably by a bigger margin How do you come to that conclusion? You think the Vote Leave campaign was detrimental to the leave vote? -Matt no, I think people already knew which way they would vote. And if people were 'daft' enough to be swayed by that £350m then surely they would have been 'daft' enough to believe they would be £4300 worse off etc If the 350 million was so obviously not important as is being claimed now. Why was it a main feature of the Leave campaign? It seems to me that all the claims to Leave are now being derided as "irrelevant to the ideas for leaving" Last week the sovereignty question was dismissed as being a red herring in the campaign after the Conservatives confirmed that Parliament has always been sovereign. So what about the claims of Parliament first, British laws... oops yes, well that wasn't relevant to the vote. Neither seemingly was it about immigration as Leavers predict a stronger economy than we have now. But with an ageing native population and reducing birth rates - it will be immigrants who will fuel this "boom." (Sic) So, not about 350 mill a week, not about Sovereignty, not about immigration - so what was it about?" If we have complete sovereignty over our laws, then why are so many up in arms about laws being able to be changed once we leave? For example, workers rights, equality and environmental laws? Surely, if we were truly sovereign and wanted to change them, then we would already have done so? | |||
" If we have complete sovereignty over our laws, then why are so many up in arms about laws being able to be changed once we leave? For example, workers rights, equality and environmental laws? Surely, if we were truly sovereign and wanted to change them, then we would already have done so?" We did, in fact, have an opt-out on the European social charter. People have to actively give up their rights in the UK! We hadn't threatened to become a low regulation economy before because we weren't so desperate to keep big international companies here who have far less of a reason to stay on the other side of a tariff barrier and access to a huge market. | |||
"A more serious question is why parliament voted against securing EU citizens right to remain here after Brexit I didn't see that one coming " God they really are walking out of the room middle finger held high in the air. | |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway?..in your multicultural wonderland immigrants don't commit crime. I am struggling to see a change in Manchester or Liverpool that has anything to do with people arriving without consent (whatever that actually means). PS I have no expectation of you being able to answer...silly me.. Harking back to the days when my wife and friends could walk through our towns without being called white whores and trash by Muslim immigrants. Immigrants commit less crime than locals. First generation children are the same as locals. Belief and limited personal experience, which is by its nature limited, does not reflect the overall reality. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-10 Check out Hans Rosling on TED to get an idea of how much what you might think diverges from what the data reveals." Yes and there are other interesting studies about local vs wider world bias. People tend to think everything is OK in their locality but that the world is fucked as a generalisation. | |||
"A more serious question is why parliament voted against securing EU citizens right to remain here after Brexit I didn't see that one coming Because it would have been stupid to do so. Rights of citizens after we leave is important and I personally believe they should have the right to stay. But also do the brits abroad. So putting it in our law as a one-sided giveaway would be foolish. It has to be part of the negotiation. Early on after Article 50, the rights of both sets should be secured. My country is the one that at one time would have taken the high moral ground. I want that country back." Am I reading this correctly? There has been a vote against securing rights for eu workers in the UK? That's hardly a good start to negotiating the equal and opposite for expat brits is it? | |||
" If we have complete sovereignty over our laws, then why are so many up in arms about laws being able to be changed once we leave? For example, workers rights, equality and environmental laws? Surely, if we were truly sovereign and wanted to change them, then we would already have done so? We did, in fact, have an opt-out on the European social charter. People have to actively give up their rights in the UK! We hadn't threatened to become a low regulation economy before because we weren't so desperate to keep big international companies here who have far less of a reason to stay on the other side of a tariff barrier and access to a huge market." So what you're saying is that we have the parliamentary power to, say, reduce all workers rights, equality legislation, and environmental standards to below EU directives? What about VAT? Do we have the right to reduce VAT to zero on everything? Can we reduce VAT on energy to zero, for example? Why did we go to the EU and ask them for permission to get rid of the 'Tampon Tax' if we are truly sovereign? | |||
"I posted a number of threads asking how Brexit would help improve various aspects of peoples lives on the UK. The NHS and social care Housing costs Increasing skills and improving education Generating well paid jobs The response from both sides was that it would-be no real difference. Didn't see your posts on those, but I think lots of people would have strong comments on them all??? Well, they didn't. All the usual Brexit suspects posted. New opinions welcome though. The problem with this forum (unfortunately) is that it is awash with people with un-budgeable views. They refuse to see any benefit or engage in any meaningful actual discussion if it detracts from their beginning position. The goal is to win an argument for 'their side' . I voted 'leave' and can see advantages and disadvantages to that in the list you have there, and for me the pros and cons of staying and leaving would put the balance in leaving. Others will see it differently, others completely black and white. The problem with 4 or 5 big issues listed, I'm not going to start a debate on any of them, because each one could be a 175 reply thread! But, I think leaving will give us a net benefit in all the things you've listed." .. I'm Irish, an outside observer and really don't care either way and from this perspective I can see which side makes the better arguments, use facts and critical thinking better and are less attached to dogmatic thinking or frankly regurgitating what the papers told them to think. It's all very interesting and from this perspective it's very clear to the outsider that brexit is a terrible choice, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face and is a tragedy of misplaced patriotism. | |||
" We hadn't threatened to become a low regulation economy before because we weren't so desperate to keep big international companies here who have far less of a reason to stay on the other side of a tariff barrier and access to a huge market. So what you're saying is that we have the parliamentary power to, say, reduce all workers rights, equality legislation, and environmental standards to below EU directives? What about VAT? Do we have the right to reduce VAT to zero on everything? Can we reduce VAT on energy to zero, for example? Why did we go to the EU and ask them for permission to get rid of the 'Tampon Tax' if we are truly sovereign? " No. Would you like our air quality to be even worse? The environmental legislation is agreed to maintain common standards and not distort the market by only imposing costs on a few countries. Harmonising taxation is part of the process for maintaining a free-market. Without common VAT levels one country could reduce levels such that it becomes cheaper to make purchases from their country. With free movement of goods everything would then be shipped there to be sold back to other countries. Essentially unfair tax competition. Some items are excluded after negotiation. I don't really understand what the obsession with "sovereign" is. Every treaty and agreement that we make with any country, international organisation or private company constrains it. That's the purpose of signing an agreement 
Nothing is imposed on us by the EU anymore than when we go and ask Trump for a deal that will suit him like open access to the NHS... | |||
" We hadn't threatened to become a low regulation economy before because we weren't so desperate to keep big international companies here who have far less of a reason to stay on the other side of a tariff barrier and access to a huge market. So what you're saying is that we have the parliamentary power to, say, reduce all workers rights, equality legislation, and environmental standards to below EU directives? What about VAT? Do we have the right to reduce VAT to zero on everything? Can we reduce VAT on energy to zero, for example? Why did we go to the EU and ask them for permission to get rid of the 'Tampon Tax' if we are truly sovereign? No. Would you like our air quality to be even worse? The environmental legislation is agreed to maintain common standards and not distort the market by only imposing costs on a few countries. Harmonising taxation is part of the process for maintaining a free-market. Without common VAT levels one country could reduce levels such that it becomes cheaper to make purchases from their country. With free movement of goods everything would then be shipped there to be sold back to other countries. Essentially unfair tax competition. Some items are excluded after negotiation. I don't really understand what the obsession with "sovereign" is. Every treaty and agreement that we make with any country, international organisation or private company constrains it. That's the purpose of signing an agreement
Nothing is imposed on us by the EU anymore than when we go and ask Trump for a deal that will suit him like open access to the NHS..."How do we get out of the single market without leaving the EU? | |||
" We hadn't threatened to become a low regulation economy before because we weren't so desperate to keep big international companies here who have far less of a reason to stay on the other side of a tariff barrier and access to a huge market. So what you're saying is that we have the parliamentary power to, say, reduce all workers rights, equality legislation, and environmental standards to below EU directives? What about VAT? Do we have the right to reduce VAT to zero on everything? Can we reduce VAT on energy to zero, for example? Why did we go to the EU and ask them for permission to get rid of the 'Tampon Tax' if we are truly sovereign? No. Would you like our air quality to be even worse? The environmental legislation is agreed to maintain common standards and not distort the market by only imposing costs on a few countries. Harmonising taxation is part of the process for maintaining a free-market. Without common VAT levels one country could reduce levels such that it becomes cheaper to make purchases from their country. With free movement of goods everything would then be shipped there to be sold back to other countries. Essentially unfair tax competition. Some items are excluded after negotiation. I don't really understand what the obsession with "sovereign" is. Every treaty and agreement that we make with any country, international organisation or private company constrains it. That's the purpose of signing an agreement
Nothing is imposed on us by the EU anymore than when we go and ask Trump for a deal that will suit him like open access to the NHS...
How do we get out of the single market without leaving the EU?"We don't. Just in the same way if we agreed a deal with China for free trade in exchange for allowing them free travel to the UK. If we decided later that we no longer wanted that deal and wanted out of it, we'd have to renegotiate it and the other side would be within their rights to not accept our new offer. -Matt | |||
" We hadn't threatened to become a low regulation economy before because we weren't so desperate to keep big international companies here who have far less of a reason to stay on the other side of a tariff barrier and access to a huge market. So what you're saying is that we have the parliamentary power to, say, reduce all workers rights, equality legislation, and environmental standards to below EU directives? What about VAT? Do we have the right to reduce VAT to zero on everything? Can we reduce VAT on energy to zero, for example? Why did we go to the EU and ask them for permission to get rid of the 'Tampon Tax' if we are truly sovereign? No. Would you like our air quality to be even worse? The environmental legislation is agreed to maintain common standards and not distort the market by only imposing costs on a few countries. Harmonising taxation is part of the process for maintaining a free-market. Without common VAT levels one country could reduce levels such that it becomes cheaper to make purchases from their country. With free movement of goods everything would then be shipped there to be sold back to other countries. Essentially unfair tax competition. Some items are excluded after negotiation. I don't really understand what the obsession with "sovereign" is. Every treaty and agreement that we make with any country, international organisation or private company constrains it. That's the purpose of signing an agreement
Nothing is imposed on us by the EU anymore than when we go and ask Trump for a deal that will suit him like open access to the NHS...
How do we get out of the single market without leaving the EU?
We don't. Just in the same way if we agreed a deal with China for free trade in exchange for allowing them free travel to the UK. If we decided later that we no longer wanted that deal and wanted out of it, we'd have to renegotiate it and the other side would be within their rights to not accept our new offer.
-Matt"So you are saying that we can't leave the EU then if the other side don't accept it? | |||
" No. Would you like our air quality to be even worse? The environmental legislation is agreed to maintain common standards and not distort the market by only imposing costs on a few countries. Harmonising taxation is part of the process for maintaining a free-market. Without common VAT levels one country could reduce levels such that it becomes cheaper to make purchases from their country. With free movement of goods everything would then be shipped there to be sold back to other countries. Essentially unfair tax competition. Some items are excluded after negotiation. I don't really understand what the obsession with "sovereign" is. Every treaty and agreement that we make with any country, international organisation or private company constrains it. That's the purpose of signing an agreement
Nothing is imposed on us by the EU anymore than when we go and ask Trump for a deal that will suit him like open access to the NHS..."We dont have common VAT levels | |||
" No. Would you like our air quality to be even worse? The environmental legislation is agreed to maintain common standards and not distort the market by only imposing costs on a few countries. Harmonising taxation is part of the process for maintaining a free-market. Without common VAT levels one country could reduce levels such that it becomes cheaper to make purchases from their country. With free movement of goods everything would then be shipped there to be sold back to other countries. Essentially unfair tax competition. Some items are excluded after negotiation. I don't really understand what the obsession with "sovereign" is. Every treaty and agreement that we make with any country, international organisation or private company constrains it. That's the purpose of signing an agreement
Nothing is imposed on us by the EU anymore than when we go and ask Trump for a deal that will suit him like open access to the NHS...
We dont have common VAT levels"sshhh  | |||
 | |||
| |||
" We hadn't threatened to become a low regulation economy before because we weren't so desperate to keep big international companies here who have far less of a reason to stay on the other side of a tariff barrier and access to a huge market. So what you're saying is that we have the parliamentary power to, say, reduce all workers rights, equality legislation, and environmental standards to below EU directives? What about VAT? Do we have the right to reduce VAT to zero on everything? Can we reduce VAT on energy to zero, for example? Why did we go to the EU and ask them for permission to get rid of the 'Tampon Tax' if we are truly sovereign? No. Would you like our air quality to be even worse? The environmental legislation is agreed to maintain common standards and not distort the market by only imposing costs on a few countries. Harmonising taxation is part of the process for maintaining a free-market. Without common VAT levels one country could reduce levels such that it becomes cheaper to make purchases from their country. With free movement of goods everything would then be shipped there to be sold back to other countries. Essentially unfair tax competition. Some items are excluded after negotiation. I don't really understand what the obsession with "sovereign" is. Every treaty and agreement that we make with any country, international organisation or private company constrains it. That's the purpose of signing an agreement
Nothing is imposed on us by the EU anymore than when we go and ask Trump for a deal that will suit him like open access to the NHS..."So basically the argument that we have direct power, I.e. sovereignty over our own laws is not true , and also we can't reduce VAT because the EU won't allow it... So the EU is responsible for higher prices. | |||
" No. Would you like our air quality to be even worse? The environmental legislation is agreed to maintain common standards and not distort the market by only imposing costs on a few countries. Harmonising taxation is part of the process for maintaining a free-market. Without common VAT levels one country could reduce levels such that it becomes cheaper to make purchases from their country. With free movement of goods everything would then be shipped there to be sold back to other countries. Essentially unfair tax competition. Some items are excluded after negotiation. I don't really understand what the obsession with "sovereign" is. Every treaty and agreement that we make with any country, international organisation or private company constrains it. That's the purpose of signing an agreement
Nothing is imposed on us by the EU anymore than when we go and ask Trump for a deal that will suit him like open access to the NHS...
We dont have common VAT levels
sshhh "No, they are agreed. Look it up. | |||
" So basically the argument that we have direct power, I.e. sovereignty over our own laws is not true , and also we can't reduce VAT because the EU won't allow it... So the EU is responsible for higher prices. " The point I was making, as clearly as I could, is that every single agreement we make with anybody reduces our "sovereignty". Climate change agreements, trade agreements, defence pacts etc. etc. All of them restrict our ability to do what we want. We do,however, agree to do so. What sovereignty is OK for you and what isn't? | |||
"Or if people were fooled by the claims from both sides then at least you could say that leavers were thinking of others while remainers were thinking of themselves I think most had made their mind up long before the subject of brexit came up Indeed when billionnaire, tax dodging newspaper owners have been undertaking a process of mass propaganda and fear for years it is no wonder that so many people had their minds shaped by fear of foreigners. The Daily mail has just been dropped by Wikipedia as a reliable source stating that it presented factually incorrect content. What took it so long to see that? " Fear of immigration swayed one side? Did fear of instant recession and of £4300 reduction in income sway the other side..... Can anyone find a shred of truth from either side? The entire campaign on both sides was full of bollocks.....and everyone I know, or have spoken to saw through all of it. (Apart from the woman on question time who voted to leave because of straight bananas) | |||
" So basically the argument that we have direct power, I.e. sovereignty over our own laws is not true , and also we can't reduce VAT because the EU won't allow it... So the EU is responsible for higher prices. The point I was making, as clearly as I could, is that every single agreement we make with anybody reduces our "sovereignty". Climate change agreements, trade agreements, defence pacts etc. etc. All of them restrict our ability to do what we want. We do,however, agree to do so. What sovereignty is OK for you and what isn't?" What you are saying is true. The EU has the additional layer that new laws passed in the eu on a periodic basis become uk law. That is different to a one off specific issue agreement. | |||
"Or if people were fooled by the claims from both sides then at least you could say that leavers were thinking of others while remainers were thinking of themselves I think most had made their mind up long before the subject of brexit came up Indeed when billionnaire, tax dodging newspaper owners have been undertaking a process of mass propaganda and fear for years it is no wonder that so many people had their minds shaped by fear of foreigners. The Daily mail has just been dropped by Wikipedia as a reliable source stating that it presented factually incorrect content. What took it so long to see that? Fear of immigration swayed one side? Did fear of instant recession and of £4300 reduction in income sway the other side..... Can anyone find a shred of truth from either side? The entire campaign on both sides was full of bollocks.....and everyone I know, or have spoken to saw through all of it. (Apart from the woman on question time who voted to leave because of straight bananas)" Or the guy who voted out who said " nothing wrong with the EU it's great,we should stay in it, but I am voting to keep the Africans out " | |||
" The point I was making, as clearly as I could, is that every single agreement we make with anybody reduces our "sovereignty". Climate change agreements, trade agreements, defence pacts etc. etc. All of them restrict our ability to do what we want. We do,however, agree to do so. What sovereignty is OK for you and what isn't? What you are saying is true. The EU has the additional layer that new laws passed in the eu on a periodic basis become uk law. That is different to a one off specific issue agreement." Again, we agreed to that. It wasn't imposed. Our sovereign government agreed to this on our behalf. You may or may not like the outcome but that is the situation. Somewhat ironically this is exactly what the majority of leavers are keen to see happen again. Government go and negotiate with minimal oversight | |||
" What you are saying is true. The EU has the additional layer that new laws passed in the eu on a periodic basis become uk law. That is different to a one off specific issue agreement. Again, we agreed to that. It wasn't imposed. Our sovereign government agreed to this on our behalf. You may or may not like the outcome but that is the situation. Somewhat ironically this is exactly what the majority of leavers are keen to see happen again. Government go and negotiate with minimal oversight "Yes, we agreed when joining and then signing the subsequent treaties (referendums not available at the time), it wasn't imposed. But I would suggest most people who voted leave have become unhappy with the continuing reach of eu legislation, to the point where the answer was eventually 'leave'. | |||
" What you are saying is true. The EU has the additional layer that new laws passed in the eu on a periodic basis become uk law. That is different to a one off specific issue agreement. Again, we agreed to that. It wasn't imposed. Our sovereign government agreed to this on our behalf. You may or may not like the outcome but that is the situation. Somewhat ironically this is exactly what the majority of leavers are keen to see happen again. Government go and negotiate with minimal oversight
Yes, we agreed when joining and then signing the subsequent treaties (referendums not available at the time), it wasn't imposed.
But I would suggest most people who voted leave have become unhappy with the continuing reach of eu legislation, to the point where the answer was eventually 'leave'."The British people only gave their consent to the elected government to join a common market in 1975, back then it was nothing more than a trade deal with a small number of countries. The EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975, adding more countries, adding more laws, adding higher contribution fees, adding more and more treaties none of which the British public gave their consent to and were not asked for nigh on 40 years if they were happy about the changes. Finally we were asked in 2016 and the British people have rejected all these changes and all these new treaties. The EU has gone too far and over stepped the mark, it has gone far beyond its original remit. Look at the state of the EU today it is a monumental fuck up of epic proportions. The EU is crumbling I think it's just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses like the house of cards that it is. Sooner we are out the better. | |||
" What you are saying is true. The EU has the additional layer that new laws passed in the eu on a periodic basis become uk law. That is different to a one off specific issue agreement. Again, we agreed to that. It wasn't imposed. Our sovereign government agreed to this on our behalf. You may or may not like the outcome but that is the situation. Somewhat ironically this is exactly what the majority of leavers are keen to see happen again. Government go and negotiate with minimal oversight
Yes, we agreed when joining and then signing the subsequent treaties (referendums not available at the time), it wasn't imposed.
But I would suggest most people who voted leave have become unhappy with the continuing reach of eu legislation, to the point where the answer was eventually 'leave'.
The British people only gave their consent to the elected government to join a common market in 1975, back then it was nothing more than a trade deal with a small number of countries. The EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975, adding more countries, adding more laws, adding higher contribution fees, adding more and more treaties none of which the British public gave their consent to and were not asked for nigh on 40 years if they were happy about the changes. Finally we were asked in 2016 and the British people have rejected all these changes and all these new treaties. The EU has gone too far and over stepped the mark, it has gone far beyond its original remit. Look at the state of the EU today it is a monumental fuck up of epic proportions. The EU is crumbling I think it's just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses like the house of cards that it is. Sooner we are out the better. "The UK government like any other Eu country has a veto on any new law the EU makes if the UK people doesn't like a new law they could let the government or their mep know and it can be vetoed that way so what you're saying is incorrect the British did have a say they choose not too use it ..if the British people had absolutely no say they were would be using a the euro (2) don't act like Britain was all high a might before they joined the EU in fact Britain had to be bailout in the 1970s by the imf (3) if the EU doesn fail in or out we will all be doomed you think the break up of the world's second largest financial block won't affect Britain negatively? | |||
" The British people only gave their consent to the elected government to join a common market in 1975, back then it was nothing more than a trade deal with a small number of countries. The EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975, adding more countries, adding more laws, adding higher contribution fees, adding more and more treaties none of which the British public gave their consent to and were not asked for nigh on 40 years if they were happy about the changes. Finally we were asked in 2016 and the British people have rejected all these changes and all these new treaties. The EU has gone too far and over stepped the mark, it has gone far beyond its original remit. Look at the state of the EU today it is a monumental fuck up of epic proportions. The EU is crumbling I think it's just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses like the house of cards that it is. Sooner we are out the better. The UK government like any other Eu country has a veto on any new law the EU makes if the UK people doesn't like a new law they could let the government or their mep know and it can be vetoed that way so what you're saying is incorrect the British did have a say they choose not too use it ..if the British people had absolutely no say they were would be using a the euro (2) don't act like Britain was all high a might before they joined the EU in fact Britain had to be bailout in the 1970s by the imf (3) if the EU doesn fail in or out we will all be doomed you think the break up of the world's second largest financial block won't affect Britain negatively? " Only some laws can be vetoed. | |||
" What you are saying is true. The EU has the additional layer that new laws passed in the eu on a periodic basis become uk law. That is different to a one off specific issue agreement. Again, we agreed to that. It wasn't imposed. Our sovereign government agreed to this on our behalf. You may or may not like the outcome but that is the situation. Somewhat ironically this is exactly what the majority of leavers are keen to see happen again. Government go and negotiate with minimal oversight
Yes, we agreed when joining and then signing the subsequent treaties (referendums not available at the time), it wasn't imposed.
But I would suggest most people who voted leave have become unhappy with the continuing reach of eu legislation, to the point where the answer was eventually 'leave'.
The British people only gave their consent to the elected government to join a common market in 1975, back then it was nothing more than a trade deal with a small number of countries. The EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975, adding more countries, adding more laws, adding higher contribution fees, adding more and more treaties none of which the British public gave their consent to and were not asked for nigh on 40 years if they were happy about the changes. Finally we were asked in 2016 and the British people have rejected all these changes and all these new treaties. The EU has gone too far and over stepped the mark, it has gone far beyond its original remit. Look at the state of the EU today it is a monumental fuck up of epic proportions. The EU is crumbling I think it's just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses like the house of cards that it is. Sooner we are out the better. The UK government like any other Eu country has a veto on any new law the EU makes if the UK people doesn't like a new law they could let the government or their mep know and it can be vetoed that way so what you're saying is incorrect the British did have a say they choose not too use it ..if the British people had absolutely no say they were would be using a the euro (2) don't act like Britain was all high a might before they joined the EU in fact Britain had to be bailout in the 1970s by the imf (3) if the EU doesn fail in or out we will all be doomed you think the break up of the world's second largest financial block won't affect Britain negatively? "The EU will collapse it's just a matter of time. It will affect us negatively but to a much lesser degree if we are outside of it. Also the British people did signal to our government in 2014 how they felt when Ukip won the European MEP elections. It was a clear message that we were not happy about the state of affairs and wanted out. | |||
" Only some laws can be vetoed." That is true. However, this was agreed to by treaty. What laws have been imposed that are actually so horrible? | |||
" We dont have common VAT levels sshhh
No, they are agreed.
Look it up."What do you mean they are agreed ? The rules or the same vat rate in each country? Each country has some discretion in VAT, most have different base level between eu set rates, it makes no difference to prices between countries as vat on sales are at the national levels regardless of country of origin and I dont need to look it up thanks I have been doing VAT returns for 30years | |||
"And yet they all think they formed their own opinions did you think you formed yours?" I formed mine years ago when I didn't want in in the first place .we were spun nothing but lies back then | |||
" What you are saying is true. The EU has the additional layer that new laws passed in the eu on a periodic basis become uk law. That is different to a one off specific issue agreement. Again, we agreed to that. It wasn't imposed. Our sovereign government agreed to this on our behalf. You may or may not like the outcome but that is the situation. Somewhat ironically this is exactly what the majority of leavers are keen to see happen again. Government go and negotiate with minimal oversight
Yes, we agreed when joining and then signing the subsequent treaties (referendums not available at the time), it wasn't imposed.
But I would suggest most people who voted leave have become unhappy with the continuing reach of eu legislation, to the point where the answer was eventually 'leave'.
The British people only gave their consent to the elected government to join a common market in 1975, back then it was nothing more than a trade deal with a small number of countries. The EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975, adding more countries, adding more laws, adding higher contribution fees, adding more and more treaties none of which the British public gave their consent to and were not asked for nigh on 40 years if they were happy about the changes. Finally we were asked in 2016 and the British people have rejected all these changes and all these new treaties. The EU has gone too far and over stepped the mark, it has gone far beyond its original remit. Look at the state of the EU today it is a monumental fuck up of epic proportions. The EU is crumbling I think it's just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses like the house of cards that it is. Sooner we are out the better. "can't come quick enough for me | |||
" The British people only gave their consent to the elected government to join a common market in 1975, back then it was nothing more than a trade deal with a small number of countries. The EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975, adding more countries, adding more laws, adding higher contribution fees, adding more and more treaties none of which the British public gave their consent to and were not asked for nigh on 40 years if they were happy about the changes. Finally we were asked in 2016 and the British people have rejected all these changes and all these new treaties. The EU has gone too far and over stepped the mark, it has gone far beyond its original remit. Look at the state of the EU today it is a monumental fuck up of epic proportions. The EU is crumbling I think it's just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses like the house of cards that it is. Sooner we are out the better. " This is often stated but it is not true. It always a significant political project. It was actually the UK that pushed the economic integration and free market aspects of membership. We moulded it. It has changed. So has the UK. Are we able to distinguish what benefits have accrued to the UK over that 40 year period? We can point to problems because they are easy to point out and as a country we've been blaming "Europe" for all sorts of things with and without validity. We'll find out presently if we've gained more than we think we've lost. | |||
" The British people only gave their consent to the elected government to join a common market in 1975, back then it was nothing more than a trade deal with a small number of countries. The EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975, adding more countries, adding more laws, adding higher contribution fees, adding more and more treaties none of which the British public gave their consent to and were not asked for nigh on 40 years if they were happy about the changes. Finally we were asked in 2016 and the British people have rejected all these changes and all these new treaties. The EU has gone too far and over stepped the mark, it has gone far beyond its original remit. Look at the state of the EU today it is a monumental fuck up of epic proportions. The EU is crumbling I think it's just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses like the house of cards that it is. Sooner we are out the better. This is often stated but it is not true. It always a significant political project. It was actually the UK that pushed the economic integration and free market aspects of membership. We moulded it. It has changed. So has the UK. Are we able to distinguish what benefits have accrued to the UK over that 40 year period? We can point to problems because they are easy to point out and as a country we've been blaming "Europe" for all sorts of things with and without validity. We'll find out presently if we've gained more than we think we've lost." mate, it was always a shit political project, whether the UK was involved or not and now it becomes apparent to most | |||
"......you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. What has changed with people arriving without consent? Whose consent anyway?..in your multicultural wonderland immigrants don't commit crime. I am struggling to see a change in Manchester or Liverpool that has anything to do with people arriving without consent (whatever that actually means). PS I have no expectation of you being able to answer...silly me.. Harking back to the days when my wife and friends could walk through our towns without being called white whores and trash by Muslim immigrants. " I've lived in Toxteth - Liverpool, Vauxhall - London, and Hounslow - West London; all areas with high ethnic and/or immigrant communities; and I never had a problem or felt scared at anytime. | |||
"If there had been no campaign the result would have been the same but probably by a bigger margin How do you come to that conclusion? You think the Vote Leave campaign was detrimental to the leave vote? -Matt no, I think people already knew which way they would vote. And if people were 'daft' enough to be swayed by that £350m then surely they would have been 'daft' enough to believe they would be £4300 worse off etc If the 350 million was so obviously not important as is being claimed now. Why was it a main feature of the Leave campaign? It seems to me that all the claims to Leave are now being derided as "irrelevant to the ideas for leaving" Last week the sovereignty question was dismissed as being a red herring in the campaign after the Conservatives confirmed that Parliament has always been sovereign. So what about the claims of Parliament first, British laws... oops yes, well that wasn't relevant to the vote. Neither seemingly was it about immigration as Leavers predict a stronger economy than we have now. But with an ageing native population and reducing birth rates - it will be immigrants who will fuel this "boom." (Sic) So, not about 350 mill a week, not about Sovereignty, not about immigration - so what was it about? it was about controling our own money. It was about Sovereignty, we didn't have full Sovereignty under the EU as well you know. And it was about controlling immigration. Migrants aren't needed to 'fuel a boom', as you also know, low skilled manual jobs will become fewer due to technology. How has Japan grown with an ageing and decreasing population?" Japan's economy hasn't grown significantly for about 10 to 15 years and was -1.5% in 2015 | |||
" mate, it was always a shit political project, whether the UK was involved or not and now it becomes apparent to most" The creation of an economic and political superpower from a collection of countries that had just been trying to destroy each other? That's an interesting definition of the word | |||
" My country is the one that at one time would have taken the high moral ground. I want that country back. Great, but that will get us shafted in the negotiation. The moral thing for the UK and EU to do is to say on day 1 that the rights of existing residents will be respected." Except there are practical problems that have to be addressed. For example, currently if a person holds an EU passport or EU national ID card it's reasonable to assume that person has the right to live and work in the UK but that won't be the case in the furniture. So how do we distinguish between those EU citizen that have the right to be here because they are already here and those that don't because they have arrived after a given date. And what date will that be? If it's a future date how do we stop a potential flood arriving before that date? But it can't be a passed date because currently we don't keep any records of the dates of arrival of EU citizens. A bit like everything else to do with BREXIT, no one has actually sat down and thought through the real problem or the potential problems with any of the proposed solutions. Maybe a workable solution can be found but the only two solutions to the problem that are obvious is either to allow all EU citizens the same rights as now or disallow all EU citizens. As the first option is basically continue with Free Movement as now, so is currently off the table, that leaves only the second obvious option; which is why so many EU citizens, who've chosen to make a life here, and British citizens, who've chosen to make a life in the EU, are rightly concerned about their futures. It's all very well making nice noises about wanting to respect the existing rights of EU residence here but, without saying exactly how that can be done, it means nothing. | |||
" My country is the one that at one time would have taken the high moral ground. I want that country back. Great, but that will get us shafted in the negotiation. The moral thing for the UK and EU to do is to say on day 1 that the rights of existing residents will be respected. Except there are practical problems that have to be addressed. For example, currently if a person holds an EU passport or EU national ID card it's reasonable to assume that person has the right to live and work in the UK but that won't be the case in the furniture. So how do we distinguish between those EU citizen that have the right to be here because they are already here and those that don't because they have arrived after a given date. And what date will that be? If it's a future date how do we stop a potential flood arriving before that date? But it can't be a passed date because currently we don't keep any records of the dates of arrival of EU citizens. A bit like everything else to do with BREXIT, no one has actually sat down and thought through the real problem or the potential problems with any of the proposed solutions. Maybe a workable solution can be found but the only two solutions to the problem that are obvious is either to allow all EU citizens the same rights as now or disallow all EU citizens. As the first option is basically continue with Free Movement as now, so is currently off the table, that leaves only the second obvious option; which is why so many EU citizens, who've chosen to make a life here, and British citizens, who've chosen to make a life in the EU, are rightly concerned about their futures. It's all very well making nice noises about wanting to respect the existing rights of EU residence here but, without saying exactly how that can be done, it means nothing." I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to work out the date a person became resident here. | |||
"Or if people were fooled by the claims from both sides then at least you could say that leavers were thinking of others while remainers were thinking of themselves I think most had made their mind up long before the subject of brexit came up Indeed when billionnaire, tax dodging newspaper owners have been undertaking a process of mass propaganda and fear for years it is no wonder that so many people had their minds shaped by fear of foreigners. The Daily mail has just been dropped by Wikipedia as a reliable source stating that it presented factually incorrect content. What took it so long to see that? ..you don't need newspapers to see the change in our towns and cities because of mass immigration without consent. "  | |||
" I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to work out the date a person became resident here." That sounds spectacularly expensive. Tracking every EU citizen in the country and verifying when they arrived | |||
" I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to work out the date a person became resident here. That sounds spectacularly expensive. Tracking every EU citizen in the country and verifying when they arrived "Indont think there is a proposal for a tracking down and mass removal program. If people are here and working they will already be on employers payroll and have housing. Whatever new work/ travel arrangeemnts are agreed will apply to new arrivals without existing accomodation or employment. | |||
" I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to work out the date a person became resident here. That sounds spectacularly expensive. Tracking every EU citizen in the country and verifying when they arrived
Indont think there is a proposal for a tracking down and mass removal program. If people are here and working they will already be on employers payroll and have housing. Whatever new work/ travel arrangeemnts are agreed will apply to new arrivals without existing accomodation or employment."I didn't say anything about removal. Some will be on payrolls. Some won't. How do you identify the home of an EU citizen? | |||
| |||
"What a fantastic year 2016 was. We've got mugs with "Liberal tears" printed on them "? | |||
"A fascinating (but very long) read on the behind the scenes strategy of the vote leave campaign: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/ Interesting talk of the problems they faced in the campaign, especially of trying to get everyone to stay on the same message. And there is a good description of their '5 key messages' in particular the bit about the £350M, and how they deliberately misstated the truth to provoke controversy: "‘The official bill of EU membership is £350 million per week – let’s spend our money on our priorities like the NHS instead.’ (Sometimes we said ‘we send the EU £350m’ to provoke people into argument...." and "Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way " Overall clearly a very effective campaign, and something I think the Remain campaign badly underestimated. -Matt" Most people already knew 350 million pounds per week,was an exaggerated figure. What happened was,The remain campaign knew,that by proving the 350 million pounds figure to be false. they would have had to verify the true figure,of 250 million pounds per week. The remain campaign realised, that Confirmation of such a massive sum, Would have been more beneficial to the leave campaign, than to the remain. For Most,To say it's only 250 million pounds per week,would hardly be reassuring. | |||
| |||
"Breezier was won because adults looked at both arguments, believed some and disbelieved some, then they made an informed choice and more people decided to leave!!! It's really easy,, everyone can keep pretending there was other issues and some people must have made a mistake but the facts are there,, leave won!! That's it?? Get on with it, it's pitiful to hear all the "yes but" arguments!! All the 350 million argument, the yeah but it was 52/48% rubbish( the welsh referendum was won on a 50.3% vs 49.7% but the result stood,, Please stop!!!! " When we have a general election does the new government do absolutely anything it wants to or is their an opposition that holds it to account? Do its own MPs and the House of Lords also make it consider the effects of policy and legislation and reformulate it when it is inappropriate or will not function? Why is a referendum different? | |||
" Most people already knew 350 million pounds per week,was an exaggerated figure. What happened was,The remain campaign knew,that by proving the 350 million pounds figure to be false. they would have had to verify the true figure,of 250 million pounds per week. The remain campaign realised, that Confirmation of such a massive sum, Would have been more beneficial to the leave campaign, than to the remain. For Most,To say it's only 250 million pounds per week,would hardly be reassuring. " Most people? Based on what? Most people who voted to Leave would not wish to if it costs them over £100/year apparently. How much is the devaluation of the currency going to cost? I'm glad that the £250 million was so obvious because after the money spent by the EU in the UK that becomes £160 million. Still a big number, but that's even further from £350 million. What does that 0.6% get us? The 6th largest contributor per head in the EU despite being one of the wealthiest. Access to the biggest, richest free trade zone in the world. Undue international influence due to our power within that organisation. The European headquarters of EU agencies and international companies. High value manufacturing investment due to access to this market. How much is that worth. It was confusion two different leave campaigns with the addition of Muslim immigration from Syria thrown in. The remain campaign was also stupid. They needed to say very little other than be positive to win but instead the Tory electoral fear machine was deployed. Informed decisions?  | |||
" Most people already knew 350 million pounds per week,was an exaggerated figure. What happened was,The remain campaign knew,that by proving the 350 million pounds figure to be false. they would have had to verify the true figure,of 250 million pounds per week. The remain campaign realised, that Confirmation of such a massive sum, Would have been more beneficial to the leave campaign, than to the remain. For Most,To say it's only 250 million pounds per week,would hardly be reassuring. Most people? Based on what? Most people who voted to Leave would not wish to if it costs them over £100/year apparently. How much is the devaluation of the currency going to cost? I'm glad that the £250 million was so obvious because after the money spent by the EU in the UK that becomes £160 million. Still a big number, but that's even further from £350 million. What does that 0.6% get us? The 6th largest contributor per head in the EU despite being one of the wealthiest. Access to the biggest, richest free trade zone in the world. Undue international influence due to our power within that organisation. The European headquarters of EU agencies and international companies. High value manufacturing investment due to access to this market. How much is that worth. It was confusion two different leave campaigns with the addition of Muslim immigration from Syria thrown in. The remain campaign was also stupid. They needed to say very little other than be positive to win but instead the Tory electoral fear machine was deployed. Informed decisions? "maybe only you were properly informed | |||
"Breezier was won because adults looked at both arguments, believed some and disbelieved some, then they made an informed choice and more people decided to leave!!! It's really easy,, everyone can keep pretending there was other issues and some people must have made a mistake but the facts are there,, leave won!! That's it?? Get on with it, it's pitiful to hear all the "yes but" arguments!! All the 350 million argument, the yeah but it was 52/48% rubbish( the welsh referendum was won on a 50.3% vs 49.7% but the result stood,, Please stop!!!! When we have a general election does the new government do absolutely anything it wants to or is their an opposition that holds it to account? Do its own MPs and the House of Lords also make it consider the effects of policy and legislation and reformulate it when it is inappropriate or will not function? Why is a referendum different?" The clue is in the word | |||
"If there had been no campaign the result would have been the same but probably by a bigger margin How do you come to that conclusion? You think the Vote Leave campaign was detrimental to the leave vote? -Matt no, I think people already knew which way they would vote. And if people were 'daft' enough to be swayed by that £350m then surely they would have been 'daft' enough to believe they would be £4300 worse off etc If the 350 million was so obviously not important as is being claimed now. Why was it a main feature of the Leave campaign? It seems to me that all the claims to Leave are now being derided as "irrelevant to the ideas for leaving" Last week the sovereignty question was dismissed as being a red herring in the campaign after the Conservatives confirmed that Parliament has always been sovereign. So what about the claims of Parliament first, British laws... oops yes, well that wasn't relevant to the vote. Neither seemingly was it about immigration as Leavers predict a stronger economy than we have now. But with an ageing native population and reducing birth rates - it will be immigrants who will fuel this "boom." (Sic) So, not about 350 mill a week, not about Sovereignty, not about immigration - so what was it about? it was about controling our own money. It was about Sovereignty, we didn't have full Sovereignty under the EU as well you know. And it was about controlling immigration. Migrants aren't needed to 'fuel a boom', as you also know, low skilled manual jobs will become fewer due to technology. How has Japan grown with an ageing and decreasing population? Japan's economy hasn't grown significantly for about 10 to 15 years and was -1.5% in 2015" similar to the EU then | |||
" Most people? Based on what? Most people who voted to Leave would not wish to if it costs them over £100/year apparently. How much is the devaluation of the currency going to cost? I'm glad that the £250 million was so obvious because after the money spent by the EU in the UK that becomes £160 million. Still a big number, but that's even further from £350 million. What does that 0.6% get us? The 6th largest contributor per head in the EU despite being one of the wealthiest. Access to the biggest, richest free trade zone in the world. Undue international influence due to our power within that organisation. The European headquarters of EU agencies and international companies. High value manufacturing investment due to access to this market. How much is that worth. It was confusion two different leave campaigns with the addition of Muslim immigration from Syria thrown in. The remain campaign was also stupid. They needed to say very little other than be positive to win but instead the Tory electoral fear machine was deployed. Informed decisions?
maybe only you were properly informed "Did you read this paragraph? "It was confusion two different leave campaigns with the addition of Muslim immigration from Syria thrown in." | |||
" Why is a referendum different? The clue is in the word" So democratic accountability is no longer required? Fine. I now understand how it works. Thanks.  | |||
" Japan's economy hasn't grown significantly for about 10 to 15 years and was -1.5% in 2015 similar to the EU then" Except Japan is, as you wish the UK to be, a country outside a free trade organisation such as the EU with full autonomy to make its own trade deals and has a bigger economy than that of the UK. They are what Brexit supporters want us to be but are doing no better than the EU which we should apparently leave | |||
" What you are saying is true. The EU has the additional layer that new laws passed in the eu on a periodic basis become uk law. That is different to a one off specific issue agreement. Again, we agreed to that. It wasn't imposed. Our sovereign government agreed to this on our behalf. You may or may not like the outcome but that is the situation. Somewhat ironically this is exactly what the majority of leavers are keen to see happen again. Government go and negotiate with minimal oversight
Yes, we agreed when joining and then signing the subsequent treaties (referendums not available at the time), it wasn't imposed.
But I would suggest most people who voted leave have become unhappy with the continuing reach of eu legislation, to the point where the answer was eventually 'leave'.
The British people only gave their consent to the elected government to join a common market in 1975, back then it was nothing more than a trade deal with a small number of countries. The EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975, adding more countries, adding more laws, adding higher contribution fees, adding more and more treaties none of which the British public gave their consent to and were not asked for nigh on 40 years if they were happy about the changes. Finally we were asked in 2016 and the British people have rejected all these changes and all these new treaties. The EU has gone too far and over stepped the mark, it has gone far beyond its original remit. Look at the state of the EU today it is a monumental fuck up of epic proportions. The EU is crumbling I think it's just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses like the house of cards that it is. Sooner we are out the better. The UK government like any other Eu country has a veto on any new law the EU makes if the UK people doesn't like a new law they could let the government or their mep know and it can be vetoed that way so what you're saying is incorrect the British did have a say they choose not too use it ..if the British people had absolutely no say they were would be using a the euro (2) don't act like Britain was all high a might before they joined the EU in fact Britain had to be bailout in the 1970s by the imf (3) if the EU doesn fail in or out we will all be doomed you think the break up of the world's second largest financial block won't affect Britain negatively? "Oh how I wish this were true....but it isn't. Treaties strengthening the EU are signed up by the government of the day. It could be up to 4 or 5 years to our next election so far to late to change. Gordon Brown promised faithfully he would hold a referendum before signing any new treaties or giving away any more powers....he then merrily signed the Lisbon Treaty without batting an eyelid! Imposed on the public with no choice...as previous treaties were. Cameron was a shit in so many ways....but he promised us a referendum, and once he wasn't shackled by the limp dems he actually delivered on his promise. Wether you, me or him expected the result or not...at least he kept to his word on that matter. | |||
" Oh how I wish this were true....but it isn't. Treaties strengthening the EU are signed up by the government of the day. It could be up to 4 or 5 years to our next election so far to late to change. Gordon Brown promised faithfully he would hold a referendum before signing any new treaties or giving away any more powers....he then merrily signed the Lisbon Treaty without batting an eyelid! Imposed on the public with no choice...as previous treaties were. Cameron was a shit in so many ways....but he promised us a referendum, and once he wasn't shackled by the limp dems he actually delivered on his promise. Wether you, me or him expected the result or not...at least he kept to his word on that matter." However the current demand is for the government to negotiate any Brexit outcome it sees fit with a "vote" which is all or nothing and no decision by the population on if it's acceptable. Just as EU treaty change but with even less Parliamentary oversight and influence. | |||
" Oh how I wish this were true....but it isn't. Treaties strengthening the EU are signed up by the government of the day. It could be up to 4 or 5 years to our next election so far to late to change. Gordon Brown promised faithfully he would hold a referendum before signing any new treaties or giving away any more powers....he then merrily signed the Lisbon Treaty without batting an eyelid! Imposed on the public with no choice...as previous treaties were. Cameron was a shit in so many ways....but he promised us a referendum, and once he wasn't shackled by the limp dems he actually delivered on his promise. Wether you, me or him expected the result or not...at least he kept to his word on that matter. However the current demand is for the government to negotiate any Brexit outcome it sees fit with a "vote" which is all or nothing and no decision by the population on if it's acceptable. Just as EU treaty change but with even less Parliamentary oversight and influence." The big difference being that they are following the will of the people in a referendum that had the largest (total and percentage) turnout in any vote in UK history. And I do not know if a single person who thought that out would be anything other than fully out. It was in the government leaflet which we all received. It was spelt out clearly by the EU and by just about every "expert" on both sides. Both sides knew exactly what we were voting on and ignored the lies and scare stories from politicians on both sides...as we always do! | |||
" Just as EU treaty change but with even less Parliamentary oversight and influence. The big difference being that they are following the will of the people in a referendum that had the largest (total and percentage) turnout in any vote in UK history. And I do not know if a single person who thought that out would be anything other than fully out. It was in the government leaflet which we all received. It was spelt out clearly by the EU and by just about every "expert" on both sides. Both sides knew exactly what we were voting on and ignored the lies and scare stories from politicians on both sides...as we always do!" Fine. I just voted on the question but I realise that this makes a whole range of matters that were not asked "unambiguous". Silly me. It's only the liberal elite who makes assumptions about what people want. Just as a reminder of Farage's words: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017 | |||
" Japan's economy hasn't grown significantly for about 10 to 15 years and was -1.5% in 2015 similar to the EU then Except Japan is, as you wish the UK to be, a country outside a free trade organisation such as the EU with full autonomy to make its own trade deals and has a bigger economy than that of the UK. They are what Brexit supporters want us to be but are doing no better than the EU which we should apparently leave "As usual you only look at things from an economic perspective. Japan gets to control its own borders and Japan places high priority on the preservation of Japanese culture. There were many more reasons why people voted leave in the EU referendum beyond just the economics. Money is not the be all and end all of everything. | |||
"Breezier was won because adults looked at both arguments, believed some and disbelieved some, then they made an informed choice and more people decided to leave!!! It's really easy,, everyone can keep pretending there was other issues and some people must have made a mistake but the facts are there,, leave won!! That's it?? Get on with it, it's pitiful to hear all the "yes but" arguments!! All the 350 million argument, the yeah but it was 52/48% rubbish( the welsh referendum was won on a 50.3% vs 49.7% but the result stood,, Please stop!!!! "
Yes the Welsh referendum on devolution was won in the late 1990's on a much smaller margin of victory and on a much smaller turnout. There was none of the bitching and moaning and wailing and knashing of teeth then, the result was accepted by everyone on both sides and the decision of the people was implemented smoothly. | |||
| |||
"Japan also has, by far, the oldest population in the world....and the lowest per head birth rate. That is actually their biggest problem. Demographics!" ...and our demographics are? | |||
" Just as EU treaty change but with even less Parliamentary oversight and influence. The big difference being that they are following the will of the people in a referendum that had the largest (total and percentage) turnout in any vote in UK history. And I do not know if a single person who thought that out would be anything other than fully out. It was in the government leaflet which we all received. It was spelt out clearly by the EU and by just about every "expert" on both sides. Both sides knew exactly what we were voting on and ignored the lies and scare stories from politicians on both sides...as we always do! Fine. I just voted on the question but I realise that this makes a whole range of matters that were not asked "unambiguous". Silly me. It's only the liberal elite who makes assumptions about what people want. Just as a reminder of Farage's words: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017" Teresa May is not making assumptions, it is the EU who have made it clear you cannot be in the single market and have control over your own borders (end free movement of people). So then the only logical conclusion is that we must leave the single market in order to have control over our borders which was one of the main points raised by vote Leave. In addition you had all the leading figures on both sides say "A vote to leave means leaving the single market" during the referendum campaign. Again on the customs union it's the EU who have made it clear you cannot be in the customs union and make your own separate bilateral trade deals around the world. The only logical conclusion then Is that we leave the customs union so that we can make our own bilateral trade deals around the rest of the world. | |||
"Japan also has, by far, the oldest population in the world....and the lowest per head birth rate. That is actually their biggest problem. Demographics! ...and our demographics are?" A long, long way behind Japan! | |||
"Breezier was won because adults looked at both arguments, believed some and disbelieved some, then they made an informed choice and more people decided to leave!!! It's really easy,, everyone can keep pretending there was other issues and some people must have made a mistake but the facts are there,, leave won!! That's it?? Get on with it, it's pitiful to hear all the "yes but" arguments!! All the 350 million argument, the yeah but it was 52/48% rubbish( the welsh referendum was won on a 50.3% vs 49.7% but the result stood,, Please stop!!!!
Yes the Welsh referendum on devolution was won in the late 1990's on a much smaller margin of victory and on a much smaller turnout. There was none of the bitching and moaning and wailing and knashing of teeth then, the result was accepted by everyone on both sides and the decision of the people was implemented smoothly. "Except the consequences were always going to be minor. If you could explain the everyday consequences to the Welsh I'd be interested. However, I understand your stance. If you agree with something it does not require democratic oversight and should not be opposed. If you don't like it you should campaign for decades and enforce a 4% majority without compromise. I understand | |||
" Japan's economy hasn't grown significantly for about 10 to 15 years and was -1.5% in 2015 similar to the EU then Except Japan is, as you wish the UK to be, a country outside a free trade organisation such as the EU with full autonomy to make its own trade deals and has a bigger economy than that of the UK. They are what Brexit supporters want us to be but are doing no better than the EU which we should apparently leave "but in terms of gdp per capita which is the important figure, they are | |||
" I understand your stance. If you agree with something it does not require democratic oversight and should not be opposed. If you don't like it you should campaign for decades and enforce a 4% majority without compromise. I understand "I was going to comment on this....but I'm still on the floor laughing......I'll get there in a minute! | |||
" Just as EU treaty change but with even less Parliamentary oversight and influence. The big difference being that they are following the will of the people in a referendum that had the largest (total and percentage) turnout in any vote in UK history. And I do not know if a single person who thought that out would be anything other than fully out. It was in the government leaflet which we all received. It was spelt out clearly by the EU and by just about every "expert" on both sides. Both sides knew exactly what we were voting on and ignored the lies and scare stories from politicians on both sides...as we always do! Fine. I just voted on the question but I realise that this makes a whole range of matters that were not asked "unambiguous". Silly me. It's only the liberal elite who makes assumptions about what people want. Just as a reminder of Farage's words: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017 Teresa May is not making assumptions, it is the EU who have made it clear you cannot be in the single market and have control over your own borders (end free movement of people). So then the only logical conclusion is that we must leave the single market in order to have control over our borders which was one of the main points raised by vote Leave. In addition you had all the leading figures on both sides say "A vote to leave means leaving the single market" during the referendum campaign. Again on the customs union it's the EU who have made it clear you cannot be in the customs union and make your own separate bilateral trade deals around the world. The only logical conclusion then Is that we leave the customs union so that we can make our own bilateral trade deals around the rest of the world. " I understand. Farage would have been wrong to follow through on that statement. Actually I suggested a negotiating position on the free movement of labour to one of your chums. It would rest on it being labour so you could have free movement without visa checks as long as there is a job to fill and access to the full benefits system depending on NI contributions. That allows negotiation on remaining in the EU. As for the rest, have a look below. You won't believe it of course because you know what you voted for as a volunteer leave campaigner. That does not mean that anyone else had exactly the same thought process, expectation or assessment of.The data as you did. Is that possible? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36641390 | |||
"Japan also has, by far, the oldest population in the world....and the lowest per head birth rate. That is actually their biggest problem. Demographics! ...and our demographics are? A long, long way behind Japan!" Have a look in country-facts.findthedata.com See how far. | |||
"We all know it was all based on lies, so where is the 350mill to the nhs a week? lol. The people running that brexit campaign weren't even in power so weren't and aren't in a position to give £350m/wk to the nhs. Even if they were, it would be post brexit, not now." Another example of "post truth" Find a picture of the bus...and find a "promise"...it never existed. It said we send the EU £350 million a week (true...but they kindly send a bit of our money back for various things). It then asked if it would be better spending it on the NHS. At no point did it say we would! How and where money is spent is a government decision. It seams that only the remain voters seemed to think this was a funding promise....? Though I know many people on both sides....I don't know a single one who thought this was true or a promise. But maybe I don't know anyone whose IQ is that low? | |||
" but in terms of gdp per capita which is the important figure, they are" It is rather a mish-mash of data you're trying to compare and draw a conclusion from. Is it the EU or the UK compared with Japan? Growth per capita income, disposable income? Is the average EU gdp relevant when a number of states were admitted with the intention of them developing? | |||
" Another example of "post truth" Find a picture of the bus...and find a "promise"...it never existed. It said we send the EU £350 million a week (true...but they kindly send a bit of our money back for various things). It then asked if it would be better spending it on the NHS. At no point did it say we would! How and where money is spent is a government decision. It seams that only the remain voters seemed to think this was a funding promise....? Though I know many people on both sides....I don't know a single one who thought this was true or a promise. But maybe I don't know anyone whose IQ is that low?" Beautifully done. The impression of marking a promise which the campaign couldn't deliver without making the promise. Of course, nobody believed this. They didn't believe that immigration would be reduced either... | |||
" Just as EU treaty change but with even less Parliamentary oversight and influence. The big difference being that they are following the will of the people in a referendum that had the largest (total and percentage) turnout in any vote in UK history. And I do not know if a single person who thought that out would be anything other than fully out. It was in the government leaflet which we all received. It was spelt out clearly by the EU and by just about every "expert" on both sides. Both sides knew exactly what we were voting on and ignored the lies and scare stories from politicians on both sides...as we always do! Fine. I just voted on the question but I realise that this makes a whole range of matters that were not asked "unambiguous". Silly me. It's only the liberal elite who makes assumptions about what people want. Just as a reminder of Farage's words: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017 Teresa May is not making assumptions, it is the EU who have made it clear you cannot be in the single market and have control over your own borders (end free movement of people). So then the only logical conclusion is that we must leave the single market in order to have control over our borders which was one of the main points raised by vote Leave. In addition you had all the leading figures on both sides say "A vote to leave means leaving the single market" during the referendum campaign. Again on the customs union it's the EU who have made it clear you cannot be in the customs union and make your own separate bilateral trade deals around the world. The only logical conclusion then Is that we leave the customs union so that we can make our own bilateral trade deals around the rest of the world. " so you going to seriously say that Boris and Gove didn't say we can have free trade with the EU and control our borders? When the question was asked to them they both said ...do you really think that Germany wouldn't wana sell us Their cars and France wouldn't sell us their wine! All whilst knowing that individual countries of the EU cannot negotiate trade deals ..there was deception in the campaign | |||
| |||
"We all know it was all based on lies, so where is the 350mill to the nhs a week? lol. The people running that brexit campaign weren't even in power so weren't and aren't in a position to give £350m/wk to the nhs. Even if they were, it would be post brexit, not now. Another example of "post truth" Find a picture of the bus...and find a "promise"...it never existed. It said we send the EU £350 million a week (true...but they kindly send a bit of our money back for various things). It then asked if it would be better spending it on the NHS. At no point did it say we would! How and where money is spent is a government decision. It seams that only the remain voters seemed to think this was a funding promise....? Though I know many people on both sides....I don't know a single one who thought this was true or a promise. But maybe I don't know anyone whose IQ is that low?" I guess you didn't bother reading the actual article then? According to the Vote Leave campaign the £350M was a deliberate and instrumental device in their campaign. So whether you think all Leave voters are thick or not is neither here nor there. It was the deliberate tactic they used. -Matt | |||
"As I don't want to keep going back and forth on this, let me summarise. I claim no insight into people's motivation and expectation for voting how they did during the referendum beyond the question asked which means that we will leave the EU. However, what form this takes is completely free within the context of the question. The contrary claim is that enough can be inferred from the vote to require a hard Brexit. From the claims, counter claims, truths, half-truths, obfuscations and confusion form both sides of the argument the direction is clear. Is that a correct assessment? If not pleasurable it clear." What do you mean, what form it takes? Leaving is leaving, call it a hard Brexit if you like but that is the only way it can be done. You are falling for lies or half truths if you think it can be any other way | |||
" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017 so you going to seriously say that Boris and Gove didn't say we can have free trade with the EU and control our borders? When the question was asked to them they both said ...do you really think that Germany wouldn't wana sell us Their cars and France wouldn't sell us their wine! All whilst knowing that individual countries of the EU cannot negotiate trade deals ..there was deception in the campaign " That's the point. Implication, inference and confusion as to what leaving would actually mean. Plausible deniability as was spelled out a few posts earlier with respect to £350 million per week going to the NHS. They didn't say that it would. They said that it could. Nobody believed it anyway apparently. So what was said? Who knows but it's clear that the vote was for hard Brexit, except we don't want it the EU are forcing us to | |||
" What do you mean, what form it takes? Leaving is leaving, call it a hard Brexit if you like but that is the only way it can be done. You are falling for lies or half truths if you think it can be any other way" Switzerland Norway | |||
" What do you mean, what form it takes? Leaving is leaving, call it a hard Brexit if you like but that is the only way it can be done. You are falling for lies or half truths if you think it can be any other way Switzerland Norway" what about them? | |||
" What do you mean, what form it takes? Leaving is leaving, call it a hard Brexit if you like but that is the only way it can be done. You are falling for lies or half truths if you think it can be any other way Switzerland Norway what about them?" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. | |||
" They were as bad as 'remain' in twisting facts and figures to their own ends. Not even close to parity. Everyone I know voted how they would have at the beginning of the campaign (50:50 between both). 37.2% of those who voted 'always' knew, a further 6.1% made their mind up a year before the referendum and another 14.1% in the January. So 57.4% of the voters decided before the campaigns got under way. 18.3 decided in the last month of the campaign, 6.1% in the last week, 7.8% in the last few days and 9.9% on polling day. Close to 22% of the 52% that voted Brexit it seems were persuaded by the campaigns. The shabby state of politics in this country has unfortunately left most people doubting whatever comes from all these peoples mouths. Indeed. One side was keen at appealing to logic, facts and reason. The other side more to emotion. There is no doubt Leave fought a more effective campaign but that doesn't mean it means the right decision was arrived at. Indeed, enough people now regret their decision that if run again it would be different. " Beside the lies and half truth either side has issued in their campaign there is one factor for the remain campaigns failure which has not been brought to attention. You cannot complain and blame the EU for any and every failure in domestic politics as British politicians use to do, you cannot use Brussels as escape goat for domestic failure for decades and then be the leader of a remain campaign . That has no credibility . Regardless the lies of the leave campaign, leaderships credibility in the remain camp was a serious weak link in the line of defense In addition I interprete the Brexit success as an Anglican/Welsh success due to sheer number of population. The two Celtic nations aren't in favor of Brexit evidently and I am certain it will bring major challenges in the aftermath of Brexit to keep the Union together | |||
" Most people already knew 350 million pounds per week,was an exaggerated figure. What happened was,The remain campaign knew,that by proving the 350 million pounds figure to be false. they would have had to verify the true figure,of 250 million pounds per week. The remain campaign realised, that Confirmation of such a massive sum, Would have been more beneficial to the leave campaign, than to the remain. For Most,To say it's only 250 million pounds per week,would hardly be reassuring. Most people? Based on what? Most people who voted to Leave would not wish to if it costs them over £100/year apparently. How much is the devaluation of the currency going to cost? I'm glad that the £250 million was so obvious because after the money spent by the EU in the UK that becomes £160 million. Still a big number, but that's even further from £350 million. What does that 0.6% get us? The 6th largest contributor per head in the EU despite being one of the wealthiest. Access to the biggest, richest free trade zone in the world. Undue international influence due to our power within that organisation. The European headquarters of EU agencies and international companies. High value manufacturing investment due to access to this market. How much is that worth. It was confusion two different leave campaigns with the addition of Muslim immigration from Syria thrown in. The remain campaign was also stupid. They needed to say very little other than be positive to win but instead the Tory electoral fear machine was deployed. Informed decisions? "No, 350 million pounds per week Minus 100 million pound rebate That equates to 250 million pounds per week,sent to the EU. . When it comes to politicians, Most people will apply the old adage, Q/how do you know a politician is lying, A/their lips are moving. That's my basis for saying most people. . Let's face it,The Remainers constantly using this figure, As a means of, grabbing the high moral ground, Is a bit rich. Considering their own campaign, was riddled with, misinformation,half truths, and downright lies. The figure you quote above, Is a perfect example. | |||
" What do you mean, what form it takes? Leaving is leaving, call it a hard Brexit if you like but that is the only way it can be done. You are falling for lies or half truths if you think it can be any other way Switzerland Norway what about them? I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered." No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. | |||
" No, 350 million pounds per week Minus 100 million pound rebate That equates to 250 million pounds per week,sent to the EU. . When it comes to politicians, Most people will apply the old adage, Q/how do you know a politician is lying, A/their lips are moving. That's my basis for saying most people. . Let's face it,The Remainers constantly using this figure, As a means of, grabbing the high moral ground, Is a bit rich. Considering their own campaign, was riddled with, misinformation,half truths, and downright lies. The figure you quote above, Is a perfect example. " You're still arguing this? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/35943216 You can look it up through fullfact.org or dig it out of the ONS data if you like. I acknowledged that both campaigns deployed fear, misinformation and obfuscation. I don't believe that you have. I'm not taking any moral stand. I'm stating that due to both campaigns loose attachment to data it is not appropriate to claim that the referendum vote is anything more than an answer to the question asked. The detail of this is anything between ultra soft and ultra hard. The difference is extremely important though. | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving." Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand "no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things | |||
" What do you mean, what form it takes? Leaving is leaving, call it a hard Brexit if you like but that is the only way it can be done. You are falling for lies or half truths if you think it can be any other way Switzerland Norway what about them?" As Nigel Farage, Boris and many other leave campaigners said more than once, that are in the Single Market but outside the EU. | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things"We really are getting into the area of post truth now. Norway is part of EEA (European Economic Area) and Switzerland is part of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) which means both are part of the internal (single) market. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_6.5.3.html The European Economic Area (EEA) was set up in 1994 to extend the EU’s provisions on its internal market to the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are parties to the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but does not take part in the EEA. The EU and EEA partners (Norway and Iceland) are also linked by various ‘northern policies’ and forums which focus on the rapidly evolving northern reaches of Europe and the Arctic region as a whole. | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things
We really are getting into the area of post truth now.
Norway is part of EEA (European Economic Area) and Switzerland is part of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) which means both are part of the internal (single) market.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_6.5.3.html
The European Economic Area (EEA) was set up in 1994 to extend the EU’s provisions on its internal market to the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are parties to the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but does not take part in the EEA. The EU and EEA partners (Norway and Iceland) are also linked by various ‘northern policies’ and forums which focus on the rapidly evolving northern reaches of Europe and the Arctic region as a whole."no, the truth is that there are 28 members of the single market. Thats it | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things
We really are getting into the area of post truth now.
Norway is part of EEA (European Economic Area) and Switzerland is part of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) which means both are part of the internal (single) market.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_6.5.3.html
The European Economic Area (EEA) was set up in 1994 to extend the EU’s provisions on its internal market to the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are parties to the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but does not take part in the EEA. The EU and EEA partners (Norway and Iceland) are also linked by various ‘northern policies’ and forums which focus on the rapidly evolving northern reaches of Europe and the Arctic region as a whole.
no, the truth is that there are 28 members of the single market. Thats it"You are simply factually incorrect. There are 32 states that are part of the internal (single). All 28 EU members plus Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a regional trade organisation and free trade area consisting of four European states: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. The organisation operates in parallel with the European Union (EU), and all four member states participate in the EU's single market. | |||
" no, the truth is that there are 28 members of the single market. Thats it" OK. So the Norwegian and Swiss relationship with the EU are equally valid options for Brexit. Splendid. | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things"No we didn't. -Matt | |||
" What do you mean, what form it takes? Leaving is leaving, call it a hard Brexit if you like but that is the only way it can be done. You are falling for lies or half truths if you think it can be any other way Switzerland Norway what about them? As Nigel Farage, Boris and many other leave campaigners said more than once, that are in the Single Market but outside the EU." Maybe you missed it but Teresa May has already ruled out a Norway or Switzerland type deal. The UK will be looking for a unique UK deal. | |||
" no, the truth is that there are 28 members of the single market. Thats it OK. So the Norwegian and Swiss relationship with the EU are equally valid options for Brexit. Splendid." Which Prime Minister Teresa May has already ruled out. Splendid. | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things
No we didn't.
-Matt"Yes we did. Centaur_Uk | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things
No we didn't.
-Matt
Yes we did.
Centaur_Uk "You must have voted in a different referendum to me then. The one I voted in asked whether we wanted to leave the EU or not. Apparently you seem to think there was a referendum on the single market and free movement. Very strange. -Matt | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things
No we didn't.
-Matt
Yes we did.
Centaur_Uk
You must have voted in a different referendum to me then. The one I voted in asked whether we wanted to leave the EU or not. Apparently you seem to think there was a referendum on the single market and free movement. Very strange.
-Matt"It was made clear by the Prime Minister David Cameron that a vote to Leave meant leaving the single market. It was made clear by the Chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. It was made clear by the foreign secretary Phillip Hammond that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. The leading figures of vote leave Justice secreatary Micheal Gove, ex London Mayor Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsome and Gisela Stuart all made it clear that a vote to leave meant Leaving the single market. | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things
No we didn't.
-Matt
Yes we did.
Centaur_Uk
You must have voted in a different referendum to me then. The one I voted in asked whether we wanted to leave the EU or not. Apparently you seem to think there was a referendum on the single market and free movement. Very strange.
-Matt
It was made clear by the Prime Minister David Cameron that a vote to Leave meant leaving the single market. It was made clear by the Chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. It was made clear by the foreign secretary Phillip Hammond that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. The leading figures of vote leave Justice secreatary Micheal Gove, ex London Mayor Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsome and Gisela Stuart all made it clear that a vote to leave meant Leaving the single market. "And it was made pretty clear that a vote to leave could give £350M a week to the NHS. So what. That is not what the referendum was on. -Matt | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things
No we didn't.
-Matt
Yes we did.
Centaur_Uk
You must have voted in a different referendum to me then. The one I voted in asked whether we wanted to leave the EU or not. Apparently you seem to think there was a referendum on the single market and free movement. Very strange.
-Matt
It was made clear by the Prime Minister David Cameron that a vote to Leave meant leaving the single market. It was made clear by the Chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. It was made clear by the foreign secretary Phillip Hammond that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. The leading figures of vote leave Justice secreatary Micheal Gove, ex London Mayor Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsome and Gisela Stuart all made it clear that a vote to leave meant Leaving the single market.
And it was made pretty clear that a vote to leave could give £350M a week to the NHS.
So what.
That is not what the referendum was on.
-Matt"So you are saying that all the debate and the material in the referendum campaigns was irrelevant then and none of It should have been put forward to the British public? We should have just had a question on a ballot paper with no debate and no campaigns for the people to make their minds up on? | |||
" So you are saying that all the debate and the material in the referendum campaigns was irrelevant then and none of It should have been put forward to the British public? We should have just had a question on a ballot paper with no debate and no campaigns for the people to make their minds up on? "The consensus appears to be that the information provided by both sides was pretty poor, with the leave campaign having both an official and unofficial thread. All this overlayed by the press spinning the lot. So it is not appropriate to say that there was a clear definition of what leave meant or means other than that the UK will no longer be part of the EU. That was the referendum question and the only answer that exists. Your reasons for voting to Leave are your own. You know what they are. Everyone else chose to believe or disbelieve whatever "facts" that they decided. It is impossible for anyone to claim that they know what they are. You can insist as much as you like but you can't read minds can you? If that is the case than Brexit means leaving the EU. Nothing more. It is up to the government (elected without a policy on this matter) to find a solution which works for the entire country (not only 52%) that delivers this outcome under the oversight of Parliament. If the British public should have a further say is a matter for parliamentary debate. As a matter of fact, the Norwegian and Swiss models as well as the hardest of hard splits will all mean that the UK has left the EU. | |||
" I'll just quote your words back to you yet again: "Maybe educate yourself and you wouldn't have to keep asking people here". Both Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU with different levels of access to the market and immigration arrangements. All we did was have a referendum on if we leave the EU or not. No other questions were answered. No definition beyond that was given beyond the various inferences that have been made. Both Norway and Switzerland's arrangements with the EU are perfectly valid in the context of the one question that was asked and answered. No they are not. To leave is to leave. To leave the EU is to leave the single market which means an end to the 4 'freedoms'. Whatever trading arrangements we want with the single market can be negotiated and is nothing to do with leaving. Fine. That assertion has been before. It's no more valid now than it ever has been
If you could just see your way clear to stating if either Norway or Switzerland are in the EU or not that would be grand
no they are not. Neither are they members of the single market, they just pay for certain access and accept some free movement. I don't know if you noticed but we just had a referendum to reject those things
No we didn't.
-Matt
Yes we did.
Centaur_Uk
You must have voted in a different referendum to me then. The one I voted in asked whether we wanted to leave the EU or not. Apparently you seem to think there was a referendum on the single market and free movement. Very strange.
-Matt
It was made clear by the Prime Minister David Cameron that a vote to Leave meant leaving the single market. It was made clear by the Chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. It was made clear by the foreign secretary Phillip Hammond that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. The leading figures of vote leave Justice secreatary Micheal Gove, ex London Mayor Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsome and Gisela Stuart all made it clear that a vote to leave meant Leaving the single market.
And it was made pretty clear that a vote to leave could give £350M a week to the NHS.
So what.
That is not what the referendum was on.
-Matt
So you are saying that all the debate and the material in the referendum campaigns was irrelevant then and none of It should have been put forward to the British public? We should have just had a question on a ballot paper with no debate and no campaigns for the people to make their minds up on? "No not at all. A few posts above it was asked about Norway and Switzerland. Both the 'Norway model' and the 'Swiss Model' were options that were bandied about ahead of the referendum, as both were deemed options in how the Uk could leave the EU. The government even published a report ahead of the referendum setting out some of these options, all as viable options should we have voted to leave: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504604/Alternatives_to_membership_-_possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU.pdf In it it sets out the various options and pros and cons of each. It talks about how if we wanted to retain access to the single market that we would need to accept the conditions that come with it etc. In conclusion it states: "Whatever alternative to membership the UK seeks following a decision to leave the EU, we will lose influence over EU decisions that will still directly affect us. We need to weigh the benefits of access to the EU and global markets against the obligations and costs incurred in return. It is the assessment of the UK Government that no existing model outside the EU comes close to providing the same balance of advantages and influence that we get from the UK’s current special status inside the EU." Now for some odd reason, you believe that the referendum was to reject all these options. Yet HMG and many other people believe that the referendum did not ask which of those options to take. Or what aspects of them we were going to reject. I really wish it did. Honestly. If the referendum had been more specific and asked what people actually wanted and set out the particular routes available then we wouldn't be in this situation now of trying to have our cake and eat it. Vote Leave managed to convince the leave voters that they could take all the good bits and that 'leave' meant whatever they imagined it would be. Alas reality is now here, and I really don't envy May and the position she is now in having to try and please everyone. -Matt | |||
" I really don't envy May and the position she is now in having to try and please everyone. -Matt" She isn't trying to please everyone. That's my concern. | |||
" I really don't envy May and the position she is now in having to try and please everyone. -Matt She isn't trying to please everyone. That's my concern." That's because she can't. Thats life. | |||
" I really don't envy May and the position she is now in having to try and please everyone. -Matt She isn't trying to please everyone. That's my concern. That's because she can't. Thats life. " Indeed. I think there will be a lot of people disappointed when they find out that Brexit means Brexit, but not Brexit or Brexit. -Matt | |||
" She isn't trying to please everyone. That's my concern. That's because she can't. Thats life. " I don't know if you follow the thread or only respond out of context to individual posts, but the debate is over why it seems to be assumed that only a hard Brexit is acceptable and is what everybody who voted to Leave wants. Do you know for a fact that it is based on the referendum question? | |||
" She isn't trying to please everyone. That's my concern. That's because she can't. Thats life. I don't know if you follow the thread or only respond out of context to individual posts, but the debate is over why it seems to be assumed that only a hard Brexit is acceptable and is what everybody who voted to Leave wants. Do you know for a fact that it is based on the referendum question?" like I said before, a 'hard' Brexit is the only option. Do you know for a fact that everybody who voted to leave didn't want a 'hard' Brexit? | |||
" like I said before, a 'hard' Brexit is the only option. Do you know for a fact that everybody who voted to leave didn't want a 'hard' Brexit?" That's not quite how it works or what is being claimed is it? Never mind. | |||
" What do you mean, what form it takes? Leaving is leaving, call it a hard Brexit if you like but that is the only way it can be done. You are falling for lies or half truths if you think it can be any other way Switzerland Norway what about them? As Nigel Farage, Boris and many other leave campaigners said more than once, that are in the Single Market but outside the EU. Maybe you missed it but Teresa May has already ruled out a Norway or Switzerland type deal. The UK will be looking for a unique UK deal. " I thought the plan was to try to negotiate a bi-lateral trade agreement with the EU. Are you saying that is also not acceptable to UKIPers and BREXITers? | |||
" She isn't trying to please everyone. That's my concern. That's because she can't. Thats life. I don't know if you follow the thread or only respond out of context to individual posts, but the debate is over why it seems to be assumed that only a hard Brexit is acceptable and is what everybody who voted to Leave wants. Do you know for a fact that it is based on the referendum question? like I said before, a 'hard' Brexit is the only option. Do you know for a fact that everybody who voted to leave didn't want a 'hard' Brexit?" Yes I do know that not every person who voted to leave believed that they were also voting to leave the internal (single) market. | |||
" She isn't trying to please everyone. That's my concern. That's because she can't. Thats life. I don't know if you follow the thread or only respond out of context to individual posts, but the debate is over why it seems to be assumed that only a hard Brexit is acceptable and is what everybody who voted to Leave wants. Do you know for a fact that it is based on the referendum question? like I said before, a 'hard' Brexit is the only option. Do you know for a fact that everybody who voted to leave didn't want a 'hard' Brexit? Yes I do know that not every person who voted to leave believed that they were also voting to leave the internal (single) market." so they voted to leave on the off chance that we would remain in the single market? Really? Now why would anyone do that? | |||
| |||
" She isn't trying to please everyone. That's my concern. That's because she can't. Thats life. I don't know if you follow the thread or only respond out of context to individual posts, but the debate is over why it seems to be assumed that only a hard Brexit is acceptable and is what everybody who voted to Leave wants. Do you know for a fact that it is based on the referendum question? like I said before, a 'hard' Brexit is the only option. Do you know for a fact that everybody who voted to leave didn't want a 'hard' Brexit? Yes I do know that not every person who voted to leave believed that they were also voting to leave the internal (single) market. so they voted to leave on the off chance that we would remain in the single market? Really? Now why would anyone do that?" Many, maybe most, voted to leave the EU and believed that voting to leave the EU would also mean leaving the internal market, but many or most is not all. I personally know leave voters who didn't. So, in answer to your question, I do know that some voters who voted to leave the EU did not vote to leave the internal market. | |||
" She isn't trying to please everyone. That's my concern. That's because she can't. Thats life. I don't know if you follow the thread or only respond out of context to individual posts, but the debate is over why it seems to be assumed that only a hard Brexit is acceptable and is what everybody who voted to Leave wants. Do you know for a fact that it is based on the referendum question? like I said before, a 'hard' Brexit is the only option. Do you know for a fact that everybody who voted to leave didn't want a 'hard' Brexit? Yes I do know that not every person who voted to leave believed that they were also voting to leave the internal (single) market. so they voted to leave on the off chance that we would remain in the single market? Really? Now why would anyone do that? Many, maybe most, voted to leave the EU and believed that voting to leave the EU would also mean leaving the internal market, but many or most is not all. I personally know leave voters who didn't. So, in answer to your question, I do know that some voters who voted to leave the EU did not vote to leave the internal market." I do not think anybody including the goverment knows what the eventual deal will be,that side was allways a bit of a gamble | |||
| |||
| |||
"Whether the government truly wants a hard Brexit or not, I think the best negotiating position comes from giving the impression that hard Brexit is fine." | |||
" so they voted to leave on the off chance that we would remain in the single market? Really? Now why would anyone do that?" Because they may have believed what they were told because it's economically rational. | |||
"Whether the government truly wants a hard Brexit or not, I think the best negotiating position comes from giving the impression that hard Brexit is fine." That is a very sensible comment. It is a negotiating position although being more emollient is equally effective. Arguably more. So as you tend to do better deals for people you like. That is not actually what anybody else is arguing sadly. | |||
" I do not think anybody including the goverment knows what the eventual deal will be,that side was allways a bit of a gamble" That's the problem though. How big a gamble? A "bit" in terms of people's livelihoods or what we have come to expect from our state is potentially life changing on an individual basis. I may well be on the pessimistic side but only because no one has yet presented me with a logic that makes me think otherwise. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
