EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Mutant Lemming]

Are the British really so stupid? !

Not stupid enough to increase support for the far right like many of the other EU states.
A third of France's EU seats are held by the National Front.

 

[AlterEgo]

And Spain. And Portugal. And Germany come to that matter (not occupied until the war was over)

In any case I wasn't alive then, neither were my parents. Heck my only living grandparent wasn't even a teenager.

I see the idea of cultural norms is lost on you. PS - the article specified Allied Powers.

Very unlikely the average Brit could tell the difference.

Does that matter? Brexiteers dislike and distrust EU law.

Wasn't there some issue with Lutherians and the pope? Either case, the number of churchgoers in the UK is somewhere in the 10% range.

Again, cultural norms.

Specifics? How has Ireland or Finland been unaffected, or Cyprus, or Malta? Is a 25 mile straight between Dover and Calais really that different than 8 mile Oresund crossing?

Well, Ireland also has an island mentality similar to Britain. Ireland's history has been clouded more with its relationship with Britain than Europe. That said, Ireland's established church comes from Rome and therefore there is a cultural connection to Europe that Britain doesn't have. Britain has a national church.

Ireland, Cyprus and Malta all have economies that make for a compelling case to be in the EU.

It seems fairly clear that:

a) a low proportion of British people consider themselves European
b) identity and values were key in the referendum

Perhaps you could explain either how neither of the above assumptions are correct, or if you agree they are correct, explain why the article is wrong and put forward an alternative?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sorry, but to vote leave based on some vague nonsense about identity coupled to some well known lies about what the EU actually does, and with no plan for any alternative, IS stupid.

What leave voters really really need to do now is tell us what plan they had in mind when they voted. They have to take responsibility for this mess.

Another key reason for voting to leave was educated people calling them stupid. This reinforces the idea that the system is broken and increases the will of people to just hit a button to shake things up a bit. There is no Brexit plan; it was the ultimate protest vote.

 

[anme]

Another key reason for voting to leave was educated people calling them stupid. This reinforces the idea that the system is broken and increases the will of people to just hit a button to shake things up a bit. There is no Brexit plan; it was the ultimate protest vote.

i.e. it was stupid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You mean like the EU taking responsibility for the problems in Italy and Portugal due to EU policy on the euro?

You mean like the bail outs and the development funds and so on?

Now, please tell us what you want to happen next. (Wrongly) claiming that someone else doesn't have a plan for something else does not absolve you from responsibility for having a plan for leaving the EU. And nonsense about free movement that isn't free movement and Leicester negotiating its own trade deals does not count.

 

[Muttley]

please tell us what you want to happen next

Why ?
Why do you want possibly 17m variations of what should happen next ?
It is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the deal that will be negotiated, and I'm fairly certain that no-one on RUK will be at those talks.
So do yourself a favour, accept the will of the people and stop trying to re-run the referendum.

 

[anme]

Why ?
Why do you want possibly 17m variations of what should happen next ?
It is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the deal that will be negotiated, and I'm fairly certain that no-one on RUK will be at those talks.
So do yourself a favour, accept the will of the people and stop trying to re-run the referendum.

For crying out loud! You must have thought about the alternatives to EU membership before you voted! At least one of those alternatives must have been better! Which was it?!

As I have written about fifty times, before and after the referendum, there are broadly two alternatives open to the UK. Not 17 million. We heard exactly the same from Merkel and Hollande this week. You must know this already. They are:
1. EEA membership, i.e. membership of the single market and continuing free movement. UK citizens will retain most of their rights under European treaties. Perhaps there could be some minor face saving compromises for the UK.
2. Isolation, with the UK ceasing to be part of the European trading bloc, probably an end of free movement (also for UK citizens) and UK citizens losing their rights under most European treaties.

Which do you prefer?

It's not a complicated question. Some might even say we should have a referendum on it.

 

[Muttley]

Which do you prefer?

Why does it matter to you ?
Why does it matter whether someone on a rail forum wants option 1 or option 2 ?

The referendum has happened. Stop trying to win a race that has already been run.

 

[anme]

Why does it matter to you ?
Why does it matter whether someone on a rail forum wants option 1 or option 2 ?

The referendum has happened. Stop trying to win a race that has already been run.

This race has not been run! There is an even bigger decision we now have to make! Surely that's obvious?

It's *vital* that we discuss this. I thought the leavers wanted to "take back control". Now it seems you (not just Muttley, but ALL the leavers on this forum, at least) want to completely give up control of the most important decision this country has made for fifty years to a government that didn't even mention this scenario in their manifesto and a prime minister that only 1/650th of the electorate even had a chance to vote for!

This is *not* about the referendum last month. It is about what happens next. Claiming otherwise is redirection and evasion. Surely you have an opinion!

I will restate mine. We MUST take option 1 - join the EEA and remain part of the single market, retain full freedom of movement and retain as many of the rights that we currently enjoy as EU citizens as possible. Do you agree? If you don't answer, I can only assume that you do agree with me.

 

[AM9]

Why does it matter to you ?
Why does it matter whether someone on a rail forum wants option 1 or option 2 ?

The referendum has happened. Stop trying to win a race that has already been run.

We were pawns in the race between the politicians. The 'winners' all decided to go into hiding when they realised that they didn't know what to do with the prizes.
The mess that they created will have to be sorted out by leading lights in the 'losers' team. Soon, the electorate will be the losers as the UK economic decline is just beginning to show.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

For crying out loud! You must have thought about the alternatives to EU membership before you voted! At least one of those alternatives must have been better! Which was it?!

As I have written about fifty times, before and after the referendum, there are broadly two alternatives open to the UK. Not 17 million. We heard exactly the same from Merkel and Hollande this week. You must know this already. They are:
1. EEA membership, i.e. membership of the single market and continuing free movement. UK citizens will retain most of their rights under European treaties. Perhaps there could be some minor face saving compromises for the UK.
2. Isolation, with the UK ceasing to be part of the European trading bloc, probably an end of free movement (also for UK citizens) and UK citizens losing their rights under most European treaties.

Which do you prefer?

It's not a complicated question. Some might even say we should have a referendum on it.

I've noticed it isn't the EU dictating terms to us at the moment but France. Other member states especially those in Eastern Europe want a more amicable deal. The reality is that all along the EEC/EU has and still is being run by France and Germany and not the member states. That is why it is ultimately in the best interests of the UK NOT to be in it.
It is bad enough being dictated to by Hollande in a few years time it could be Marine LePen.

 

[radamfi]

I've noticed it isn't the EU dictating terms to us at the moment but France. Other member states especially those in Eastern Europe want a more amicable deal. The reality is that all along the EEC/EU has and still is being run by France and Germany and not the member states. That is why it is ultimately in the best interests of the UK NOT to be in it.
It is bad enough being dictated to by Hollande in a few years time it could be Marine LePen.

I'm genuinely curious why you won't answer anme's question. Same goes for other Brexiteers. It is as if as long as the UK is nominally outside the EU then you don't care, even if things are more or less the same as before. That's reassuring for those of us who want to stay in the EEA.

 

[Mvann]

As you are only giving 2 choices and complete no strings attached freedom of movement is unsustainable I'd have to go for option 2. As far as I know, no other trade block has complete freedom of movement with no strings attached.

 

[anme]

As you are only giving 2 choices and complete no strings attached freedom of movement is unsustainable I'd have to go for option 2. As far as I know, no other trade block has complete freedom of movement with no strings attached.

Fantastic! You have answered the question! Wow! Really I'm impressed. I think you should treat yourself to a long sit down and a cold drink. Obviously, I think you're totally wrong.

Anyway, don't you think the British public should be given a say in answering the question, either through a referendum or a general election? If not, why not?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've noticed it isn't the EU dictating terms to us at the moment but France. Other member states especially those in Eastern Europe want a more amicable deal. The reality is that all along the EEC/EU has and still is being run by France and Germany and not the member states. That is why it is ultimately in the best interests of the UK NOT to be in it.
It is bad enough being dictated to by Hollande in a few years time it could be Marine LePen.

Provide some evidence for this theory. Are you seriously claiming that eastern European states want to end freedom of movement? Please THINK about what you write before posting!

 

[Mvann]

I'm genuinely curious why you won't answer anme's question. Same goes for other Brexiteers. It is as if as long as the UK is nominally outside the EU then you don't care, even if things are more or less the same as before. That's reassuring for those of us who want to stay in the EEA.

Because when you say things like that you want to be able to be able to have some restrictions in at times and total no strings attached freedom of movement is not sustainable, he seems to be of the all or nothing school. He also missinterprets what you right down. He believes that because you want to be able to put restrictions on movement at times, you are against imigration, which I'm not, and that you are a hard brexiteer, which I'm not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fantastic! You have answered the question! Wow! Really I'm impressed. I think you should treat yourself to a long sit down and a cold drink. Obviously, I think you're totally wrong.

Anyway, don't you think the British public should be given a say in answering the question, either through a referendum or a general election? If not, why not?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Provide some evidence for this theory. Are you seriously claiming that eastern European states want to end freedom of movement? Please THINK about what you write before posting!

No they don't want to end all freedom of movement, but they are more likely to agree with something like you have to have a job organised to be able to stay here long term. No restrictions of travel into the country for short term stays.

 

[Gutfright]

I'm genuinely curious why you won't answer anme's question. Same goes for other Brexiteers. It is as if as long as the UK is nominally outside the EU then you don't care, even if things are more or less the same as before. That's reassuring for those of us who want to stay in the EEA.

I can't speak for other leave voters, but anme's posts look a lot like flamebait to me (eg calling Brexiters stupid, saying we're not grown up etc).

I may be willing to engage in debate in future if anme can demonstrate the ability to maintain an adult, civil conversation. Until such time, I won't feed the troll.

 

[radamfi]

No they don't want to end all freedom of movement, but they are more likely to agree with something like you have to have a job organised to be able to stay here long term.

That's basically what we've got now though. You won't last long here unless you've got a job.

No restrictions of travel into the country for short term stays.

Not sure why this is relevant. Much of the world can visit the UK for either 6 months or 90 days without a visa.

 

[Mvann]

That's basically what we've got now though. You won't last long here unless you've got a job.



Not sure why this is relevant. Much of the world can visit the UK for either 6 months or 90 days without a visa.

Just so that anme understands that.

 

[anme]

Just so that anme understands that.

Now I'm very confused - are you for or against freedom of movement? Let's be completely clear - when I talk about freedom of movement I mean the actual freedom to live and work where you like in the EU on equal terms to local people. Not visit for a short while as a tourist.

Furthermore, there's a huge difference between allowing someone to live in the UK when they have a job, and actual freedom to build a life where you want in the EU. What happens when you lose the job? Are you thrown out of the UK? Or are you able to stay and look for another job, possibly claiming benefits in the mean time? If you don't allow those freedoms, there's no security, and no way anyone could plan to stay long term.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't speak for other leave voters, but anme's posts look a lot like flamebait to me (eg calling Brexiters stupid, saying we're not grown up etc).

I may be willing to engage in debate in future if anme can demonstrate the ability to maintain an adult, civil conversation. Until such time, I won't feed the troll.

We could have a sensible conversation *if* you would tell us what you want to happen next. Mvann has told us - s/he won't accept the four European freedoms. I have said - I absolutely want to preserve all the European freedoms for the British people and for other EU citizens in the UK, and who might come here in the future. That's not flamebait. That's having a debate.

BTW, still waiting for someone to say whether the British people should be given a say on what happens next, or whether we leave it entirely to the government - who didn't even cover this scenario in their manifesto. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of referendums for obvious reasons, but it astonishes me that no-one on either side seems to care about this.

 

[Domh245]

BTW, still waiting for someone to say whether the British people should be given a say on what happens next, or whether we leave it entirely to the government - who didn't even cover this scenario in their manifesto. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of referendums for obvious reasons, but it astonishes me that no-one on either side seems to care about this.

What we appear to have seen is people using this vote as a protest vote. I suspect that putting renegotiated terms to the public (assuming they know as much about the renegotiated terms as they did about the EU) would also lead to a similarly rebellious result. We (GB public) have proven ourselves to be useless at running referendums properly, so it is in the Governments hand to make sure the deal that we get (if any) is in the country's best interest.

 

[Rich McLean]

It will be EEA or nothing. If we remain in the EEA all this talk of independent trade deals being lined up will be a waste of time and money as we won't be allowed to have any say in trade deals in the EEA

 

[Mvann]

Now I'm very confused - are you for or against freedom of movement? Let's be completely clear - when I talk about freedom of movement I mean the actual freedom to live and work where you like in the EU on equal terms to local people. Not visit for a short while as a tourist.

Furthermore, there's a huge difference between allowing someone to live in the UK when they have a job, and actual freedom to build a life where you want in the EU. What happens when you lose the job? Are you thrown out of the UK? Or are you able to stay and look for another job, possibly claiming benefits in the mean time? If you don't allow those freedoms, there's no security, and no way anyone could plan to stay long term.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


We could have a sensible conversation *if* you would tell us what you want to happen next. Mvann has told us - s/he won't accept the four European freedoms. I have said - I absolutely want to preserve all the European freedoms for the British people and for other EU citizens in the UK, and who might come here in the future. That's not flamebait. That's having a debate.

BTW, still waiting for someone to say whether the British people should be given a say on what happens next, or whether we leave it entirely to the government - who didn't even cover this scenario in their manifesto. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of referendums for obvious reasons, but it astonishes me that no-one on either side seems to care about this.

I'm not for complete no strings attached freedom of movement. But I have no problem with freedom or ease of movement either as long as there is an option for restrictions when necessary.

 

[Gutfright]

We could have a sensible conversation *if* you would tell us what you want to happen next. Mvann has told us - s/he won't accept the four European freedoms. I have said - I absolutely want to preserve all the European freedoms for the British people and for other EU citizens in the UK, and who might come here in the future. That's not flamebait. That's having a debate.

I wouldn't be too upset if we were to just copy-paste the EU - South Korea Free Trade Agreement and replace the words "South Korea" with "United Kingdom".

It would be more democratic to have a referendum on joining the EEA, but we have to be wary of the fact that it would take time and the last thing Britain (and the EU) needs is to prolong this period of uncertainty. The government should activate Article 50 and start negotiating bilateral trade agreements (with freedom of movement firmly off the table) as soon as it's practicable to do so.

 

[anme]

Not sure why this is relevant. Much of the world can visit the UK for either 6 months or 90 days without a visa.

I wonder if British people are aware of the UK visa system. Have a read of this! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom

Most of the world needs a visa to enter the UK, except for EU/EEA countries, north and some of south America, and Australia and New Zealand.

The cost of a short stay visa for a holiday or business visit is GBP 87 and you are required to be fingerprinted at a visa centre in advance (which may cost extra, plus you have to pay to get there and take time off work). Most visa centres "aim" to make a decision within three weeks, during which time you won't have your passport. Some offer a priority service, "aiming" to complete the process in five days. For example, in Brussels (random choice) this costs an additional EUR 181.50 (https://uk.tlscontact.com/be/BRU/page.php?pid=added_value_services). If you can make it to Paris, you can get a decision with 24 hours. This super priority service costs EUR 852 (seriously, I'm not making this up - https://uk.tlscontact.com/be/BRU/news.php?id=2931_667).

When you apply, as well as your passport, you will probably need to provide evidence such as bank statements or payslips to prove you can support yourself. If these are not in English or Welsh, a certified translation must be supplied (more cost). See https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa/documents-you-must-provide

Note that, being the UK, much of the process is contracted out to private companies. A quick Google will tell you a lot about their reputation.

I work in an international environment and I can tell you that the UK does not have a good reputation for its visa and immigration service. This idea that the UK is suddenly going to open up to the rest of the world after leaving the EU seems pretty optimistic to me.

Here's a final fact for you. Most people, including Indians and Chinese citizens, even need a visa to transit *airside* between flights in the UK. Again, I'm not making this up. See https://www.gov.uk/transit-visa/direct-airside-transit-visa

 

[Garmoran]

That said, Ireland's established church comes from Rome and therefore there is a cultural connection to Europe that Britain doesn't have. Britain has a national church.

Interesting statement. Remind me what the British national church is, please.

Another key reason for voting to leave was educated people calling them stupid. This reinforces the idea that the system is broken and increases the will of people to just hit a button to shake things up a bit. There is no Brexit plan; it was the ultimate protest vote.

This seems a more accurate statement. However, as anme says, it doesn't seem an intelligent response to the problems.

 

[anme]

I wouldn't be too upset if we were to just copy-paste the EU - South Korea Free Trade Agreement and replace the words "South Korea" with "United Kingdom".

Now we're talking! Do you have any concerns that the UK's economy is rather different to South Korea's? Do you think the EU would agree to this?

It would be more democratic to have a referendum on joining the EEA, but we have to be wary of the fact that it would take time and the last thing Britain (and the EU) needs is to prolong this period of uncertainty. The government should activate Article 50 and start negotiating bilateral trade agreements (with freedom of movement firmly off the table) as soon as it's practicable to do so.

So if I understand correctly, you are a "hard Brexiter", right? No freedom of movement, so also not part of the single market.

If the government starts negotiating for EEA membership, would you then demand a referendum?

 

[Gutfright]

Now we're talking! Do you have any concerns that the UK's economy is rather different to South Korea's? Do you think the EU would agree to this?

Obviously the agreement would have to be tweaked and fine-tuned a bit to be suitable for the UK, but there is no reason why the EU would not sign a free trade deal with us with the same general tone and tenor of their free trade agreement with South Korea.

So if I understand correctly, you are a "hard Brexiter", right? No freedom of movement, so also not part of the single market.

If the government starts negotiating for EEA membership, would you then demand a referendum?

Personally I wouldn't. I'm going to wait and see what deal the EU and UK reach, and reserve judgement until I can see it's real-world effects. Obviously it would be more democratic if the government consulted with the people of Britain every step of the way, but doing so would stretch out this damaging period of uncertainty.

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting statement. Remind me what the British national church is, please.

The Anglican Church is the established and official state religion. Its bishops sit in the Lords.

In Scotland it's the Kirk.

Neither of those churches draws its authority from outside the UK. This is culturally important when we look at the rest of Europe, which are mostly orthodox, Catholic, or Lutheran - all international religions with wide influence and cultural sway across the continent.

Now, not many of us are Anglicans, or go to church, but the above is relevant to consider as a factor when we ask ourselves "why don't a lot of British people consider themselves European?"

 

[Muttley]

This race has not been run! There is an even bigger decision we now have to make! Surely that's obvious?

It's *vital* that we discuss this.

No.
We don't have any decisions to make, not until there is either a general election or another referendum.
And whilst it might be of academic interest to discuss it, one thing it isn't and that's vital.

 

[WelshBluebird]

eg calling Brexiters stupid

It may not go down well, but I agree with him.

Voting to leave based on misinformation and "feelings" (identify etc) rather than facts and then not even having an idea of what you would prefer after we leave the EU is stupid. It is the very definition of.

In contrast, I have a couple of friends who voted to leave however they managed to present well informed and factually correct arguments about why they did so. That is fine. I may disagree with them but at least they actually knew what they were voting for!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No.
We don't have any decisions to make, not until there is either a general election or another referendum.
And whilst it might be of academic interest to discuss it, one thing it isn't and that's vital.

You can say we as a country do have to make a decision. That decision will probably made by the politicians but it does have to be made!
And I would say that answering the question of our relations with the EU and other countries is pretty damn vital!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting statement. Remind me what the British national church is, please.

Probably the one our head of state is also head of?

 

[radamfi]

The leave crowd encompasses a range of views from "soft" Brexit (people who want out of the EU for sovereignty reasons but want single market access and full freedom of movement) to the hardcore who want out of everything. Whereas of course remainers clearly want the single market. So surely the softest of Brexits would be the most equitable and would most fairly balance the views of the referendum voters. It would be a Brexit so soft you would hardly notice it. That would surely mean EEA membership.

I'm not for complete no strings attached freedom of movement. But I have no problem with freedom or ease of movement either as long as there is an option for restrictions when necessary.

The EEA does have provision for an "emergency brake" on immigration (Article 112) so perhaps this would be to your satisfaction? So Norway/Iceland/Liechtenstein have "got away" with having this rule while enjoying single market access and complete EU/EEA freedom for their own citizens.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The Anglican Church is the established and official state religion. Its bishops sit in the Lords.

In Scotland it's the Kirk.

Neither of those churches draws its authority from outside the UK. This is culturally important when we look at the rest of Europe, which are mostly orthodox, Catholic, or Lutheran - all international religions with wide influence and cultural sway across the continent.

Now, not many of us are Anglicans, or go to church, but the above is relevant to consider as a factor when we ask ourselves "why don't a lot of British people consider themselves European?"

Utter tosh. The bishops in the Lords have little actual power and this country is more secular and liberal nowadays.

There are 26 Lords Spiritual (Bishops and Archbishops) and 773 Lords Temporal.

The biggest consideration as to why don't a lot of British people consider themselves European is geographic.

However that has little to do with the result of this referendum, which was more down to a few factors like:

Giving the government (and David Cameron especially) a bloody nose.

Immigration (despite the fact that the majority of immigrants are non-EU)

Sovereignty (despite the fact that we elect our representatives to both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, also national government debates and implements EU directives and that they can be open to interpretation by national governments to fit their will, and that EU directives form a tiny proportion of our laws)

Believing the lies propagated by mainstream media (mainly related to the immigration and sovereignty discussions above) who have the interests of their owners at heart rather than the general public. This quote from Anthony Hilton in the Evening Standard sums it up (source here)...

I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.

Could've been persuaded either way but disliked "project fear". I can't blame them. The remain campaign should've been promoting the positive aspects of the EU. Instead we got "the sky will fall if we leave", which was a total overreaction that the voting public saw right through.

Could've been persuaded either way but thought leaving would mean £350m per week could've been spent on X. Brexit campaigners seemed to have no end to where this fictional money would go.

Could've been persuaded either way but like the fact that Farage looks like a normal person (poor sods got totally fooled)

Then we get the genuine but moderate Euro Skeptics (the Kippers and the Euroskeptic wings of Labour, Conservatives, etc - except the Lib Dems who are almost entirely pro European)

And finally we get the xenophobic/racist/far right/far left (Britain First, BNP, Communist Party of Great Britain, etc) - thankfully smallest of the groups.