[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

.

THM - we had a referendum which had no guidance in the legislation as to what would happen (probably because they’d never have got a binding referendum through parliament), which we were then told during the campaign was binding.  That’s a democratic fail straight off.

The referendum result was “Mmm, not really sure, as but more out than in on balance” - I mean 1.9% swing for goodness sake - but while “in” was reasonable defined (I agree it would have changed over the years, but the UK would have had its say in that), “out” was completely undefined - some folk seeing it as a libertarian wet dream, others as a chance to roll back international capitalism (square those two), while for others it was all about the wrong sort of immigrants - sorry taking control of our borders. (Turns out we all like the right sort of immigrants we just don’t necessarily agree on what the right sort are).

Democracy was poorly served by that referendum and the lunatic fringe of the leave movement killing a remainer  MP didn’t help.  Brexies can improve their standing in my eyes by condemning that event - something they were slow to do at the time preferring to talk about how she occasionally helped Muslims.

The Brexy dominated press then turned on anyone and everyone who even hinted that 100% of Britons weren’t behind leaving.  MPs, judges, lords and private citizens were bullied in a really nasty way.

There has been plenty of democratic process and precious little democracy throughout this.

Now as we’re starting to understand what leave means the people have turned against leaving - only just I agree, but they have.  But that can’t be acknowledged, can it.

Anyway, looking at possible silver linings, I’m considering buying an apartment in the Alps, and there’s a good chance that Brexit might cause the prices in the more anglophone resorts to fall a bit.  It’s an ill wind and all.

a final decision on a preferred model has not yet been taken

So another "possible" idea. Well, actually a restating of a possible idea. Wake me up when the government is actually making a proposal…

No we did not and it was made clear that the result would be respected. We really need to stop making stuff up about this

We had a referendum on membership of the EU. Very clear

We know what that entails - benefits, core foundations etc, compromises. google is your friend

We chose to give that up - narrowly admittedly

If people chose not to read what membership entails or if we did a bad job at presenting the cost-benefit analysts that that’s their/our fault

Its simply not true to pretend that we did not know what would happen. That’s a false as the lies the Brexshiteers used in the first place

If you believe that voting to give up membership of the EU and what this entails is meaningless then I cannot help. Sorry!

You are grossly and unhelpfully oversimplifying the situation THM.

You have to understand that.  Ok so we're leaving.  Fine.  So what's our new world situation going to be? Is it going to be what people want?

“But that can’t be acknowledged, can it.”

Especially not by remainers such as Hurty, who happily changed their colours when they thought they’d worked out how to make a bob or two out of leaving.

Being such a fan of democracy and all, he seems very set against the idea of a second referendum. I have no idea why he wishes to deny the people the right to confirm their decision once the details are known. It’s almost like he’s not such a fan of democracy after all. Sad.

Cough

as opposed to blatantly lying about it?

we had a referendum which had no guidance in the legislation as to what would happen (probably because they’d never have got a binding referendum through parliament), which we were then told during the campaign was binding. That’s a democratic fail straight off.

Traitor. Oh, no, sorry, I meant "correct".

The rest of your post also made complete sense to me.

The only thing I'd disagree on, is the Leave vote could well have been higher if it was not for the murder of an MP. The Leave campaign was on a roll at that point (partly for the reasons you mention), and the halt in campaigning probably slowed down their progress.

“Its simply not true to pretend that we did not know what would happen.“

Horseshit. We still don’t, largely. And you know that as well as anyone else.

“as opposed to blatantly lying about it?”

You couldn’t lie straight in bed, mate.

Abuse won’t change the facts zokes but you carry on regardless. Leopards and all...

Its simply not true to pretend that we did not know what would happen.

Essentially your argument is we have voted to go on a holiday so therefore we all know what we are doing. the fact no one has said where to or how we get there [and we are still arguing about these] is irrelevant as we do know what we are doing.
I can see the logic in your position but its quite a weak argument. If we knew what we had voted for we would be doing it without this level of uncertainty.

I do agree there will be a deal as no one does fudges like the EU- they are not the DUP after all- I am less sure the tory party is willing to pay the price required though.

PS thanks for actually debating

“Leopards and all…”

They rarely change their spots. I know. You’ve always been an unpleasant troll. It seems likely you want to continue being one.

And for you to whinge about abuse, well, that’s just about the most hypocritical thing anyone has said in all >1000 pages of this thread.

Crack right on mate, we’re all laughing.

QED

Abuse won’t change the facts zokes but you carry on regardless. Leopards and all…

THM - we still don't know if we're getting soft or hard brexit.

You can't pretend this is simple.

But that can’t be acknowledged, can it.

Of course it can't, because it is wishful thinking. As someone who knows what he is talking about says

Detecting a shift in public opinion on Brexit – in either direction – is, it seems, very hard to do.

We had a referendum on membership of the EU. Very clear

We know what that entails – benefits, core foundations etc, compromises. google is your friend

It completely misses what the alternatives entail.

If we want a trade deal with say India we have to compromise on what THEY want...
Lots of "we can have a deal with" are floated but what does that "deal" entail?

Sure we have EU core foundations ... one of which is free movement but what is the alternative? As Theresa found out in India there isn't one that doesn't involve Indian people being able to come to the UK and do British jobs...

We can of course ask for free movement for British people going to India to work... but overall is that better than EU people and a right to work in the EU?

The point is until we have these deals then there is no defined alternative.
We have a current market with the EU ... it has some core foundations and compromise but so will EVERY trade deal.

Until we know what those are it's pure speculation vs a reasonably defined path staying put. As IGM say's not without uncertainty but more certain than "we will have trade deals under WTO"

THM – we still don’t know if we’re getting soft or hard brexit.

You can’t pretend this is simple.

We don't even know what a soft or hard Brexit ACTUALLY mean.
Even if we had a choice of No Exit, Soft or Hard ... what do those options really mean.

A hard Brexit means nothing unless we have deals agreed and in place... we can't just expect to get preferential deals because other countries feel sorry for us.

What exactly is a soft brexit? There must be 100 different flavours...

Admittedly a no Brexit isn't 100% certain but we have far more idea than a soft and almost infinitely more than a hard.

We can only ever vote for a direction of travel, no one can guarantee an "end state", the referendum clearly did that and now it is up to the government to see what can be secured.

“and now it is up to the government to see what can be secured.”

So it’s that bad. Cripes.

THM - if you think I’m making something up then feel free to be specific.  I don’t think anything I said is incorrect, though clearly it comes from a pro-EU point of view.

However show me where I’m actually wrong and I’ll say sorry.

The legislation, which I have read, was gloriously quiet on what would happen.

I accept that during the campaign (by which I mean all the statements and sssertions outside the legislation) they said the result would be respected (I said binding but who’s counting). Interesting concept though given if there was to be a “result” the legislation should have said how that result would be defined, say 50%+1 or 2/3s majority - it didn’t.

Now am I incorrect on either of those points?

That making things up outside the legislation is bad democracy.

The rest of my rant follows from there.

Any financial deal will require more than d'accord and einverstanden. 27 countries to please, fat chance.

Nice selective quoting of John Curtice (a man for whom I have some respect), Mefty. Doesn’t entirely reflect the rest of the article does it now.

As an aside, a previous holder of John Curtice’s position as Professor of Politics at Strathclyde was my father.

now it is up to the government to see what can be secured

So why should such a dramatic change in the future of our country be planned in secret by such a small group of people?

Here you go. My father, 1974, with a handheld swingometer - you don’t get the handhelds anymore.

https://goo.gl/images/pcBCq9

Correct mol - but the ideas of soft and hard Brexit are pretty meaningless anyway

IGM you first poInt was the one that I disagreed with.

The only countries that have full access to the single market are member states. The single market entails the free movement of people, goods and services, and capital. These four pillars are secured through rules interpreted by the ECJ. All of this was/is well known or should be.  No excuses on any of this

We have rejected membership of the EU. We voted on that through a referendum, parliamentary votes and a GE where the two leading parties committed to honouring the result. A democratic process. Our side lost.

The only difficulty is that we want to maintain liberalised trade with the the EU (quite naturally and vice versa) while at the same time limiting FoM and the reach of the ECJ. We want to achieve this via a bespoke agreement. Again all of this was know pre, during and post the referendum.

What we also know is that there are obvious tensions in our chosen route. We also know how these relate to each of the existing trade deals and Jambas favourite but flawed option of WTO. Again all of this was available before the vote. It’s available now

Whaf we do not know is where each side will compromise in relation to the various points of tension. Each of the major parties disagree internally on these issues which is not really surprising. The monochrome gangs on either sides cling to extreme views and make the most noise doing so

In the meantime, grown ups negotiate, compromise and move on with much less noise. Today’s proposal re fin services is another good example

all anyone has to do is read - oh and ignore most of the media

So, contrary to popular nonsense this really is quite simple at least conceptually and there are no exuses other than laziness for claiming otherwise

Nice selective quoting of John Curtice (a man for whom I have some respect), Mefty. Doesn’t entirely reflect the rest of the article does it now.

As I quoted his conclusion, I think he thinks it does reflect the rest of the article.

😀

THM - was there special legislation that I didn’t see then or did they not on one hand authorise an advisory referendum while on the other hand state it was binding?

I struggle to see what you’re disagreeing with.  The rest of it would be far more sensible to disagree with.

Though I can see that if you accept the flawed from the start argument then it causes problems with the democratic will argument.

Mefty - within the conclusion it has a somewhat different meaning than your disingenuous selective quoting of it.

Context matters.

The thrust of that article is that it appears there is a shift, but Prof Curtice can’t prove it.  And that is where your quote fits.

But carry on.

Why is a vote to Leave the EU read to mean that "we" have to be limiting FoM? We could change our own rules on FoM without leaving the EU, and there are countries outside the EU that have more liberal rules on FoM than we do. We could leave the EU, and at the same time extend FoM rather than limit it, without any contradiction as regards the "result" of the referendum.

You just have to read IGM - I have quoted the specific passage umpteen times.

But you are mixing messages here, if I may say so. I was disagreeing with your first point about not knowing etc. That is simply untrue.

No we did not and it was made clear that the result would be respected.

There have been quite a few things over the last year that have been "perfectly clear" that have strangely turned out to be nothing of the sort...

Membership of the EU entails FoM. For some bizarre reason a lot of people don’t like it. So they voted against it. Hence we can’t be members. It’s not difficult.

Ditto the ECJ - remember what they said about taking back control.

But, we could stop being members, but then liberalise FoM as a non-member … even sign up to Schengnen. Nothing in your "clear" referendum question or result that excludes that option… and it would help to get us a close trading relationship with our neighbours.

Mefty – within the conclusion it has a somewhat different meaning than your disingenuous selective quoting of it.

No there isn't, you just can't accept reality, it is a pretty typical remainer flaw.

You just have to read IGM – I have quoted the specific passage umpteen times.

THM - I think if I may be so bold, you may have misread what I wrote.

I said there was no guidance in the legislation about what would happen. That was what I meant. There was no guidance, given in the legislation, that for example at 67% we would withdraw from EU membership.

i think that is correct.

We will be able to do what we like re FoM - correct. It will be our choice in future. Personally I am all in favour.

But that is a separate discussion. The question in hand is membership of the EU which requires FoM

Mefty 😂

There was very clear guidance that the result would be respected whatever the outcome. I have quoted it many times. But feel free to ignore this if it helps.

But, we could stop being members, but then liberalise FoM as a non-member … even sign up to Schengnen. Nothing in your “clear” referendum question or result that excludes that option… and it would help to get us a close trading relationship with our neighbours.

Yes

We could

Hurrah - you're starting to understand all this sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy thing at last, well done!

😀

No there isn’t, you just can’t accept reality, it is a pretty typical remainer flaw.

Now that is a bone-headed response if there ever was one!

Correct mol – but the ideas of soft and hard Brexit are pretty meaningless anyway

Well no - soft means staying in the EEA, hard means not.  Straightfoward.

As for a 'bespoke' deal - that tells us nothing.  We as a country have no idea what we're going to end up with because we were never told what our government wants.

You seem to be suggesting that there is only one possible solution that is the boundary between what the EU wants and what the UK Govt wants.  If that were true, we still have no idea where they want that boundary to be.  We're passengers, that's all.

As for parliamentary sovereignty - that's great if you have faith in your parliament.

Oh gosh, how erudite.