EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[radamfi]

If we leave the EU in name only and nothing changes then that is not leaving the EU at all. Thankfully May and the government appear to be of the mind that things will change, and change in a big way. The whole point of voting leave, really.

Eh? This sounds like Leaver talk.

 

[me123]

But that is all a logical connection ( or at least a potential connection) with our decision to leave the EU.

Unfortunately the leave campaign failed to provide any coherent description of what leaving the EU entailed. Lots of leave voters have wildly different notions of what they voted for. Some people wanted freedom of movement, some didn't. Some wanted to remain in the common market, some didn't.

The leave voters voted for essentially nothing. A vague collection of nonsensical promises and ideologies. This gives the government little guidance on what it has to do, hence the dozen vague statements that Theresa May thinks constitutes a plan. Having an open mandate can be a good thing some would argue, but having so little to work with means that we'll be stuck with whatever the Tories agree in just over two years time (for better or worse). This is why yesterday's court ruling makes sense - of course parliament should be voting on the details. Since the public were unable to actually reach an informed decision (thanks to the absurdly terrible campaigns on both sides), it makes sense that those who scrutinise legislation on our behalf on a daily basis are involved in the process.

We are now seven months down the line, and still don't really know what's going to happen.

 

[NSEFAN]

Unfortunately the leave campaign failed to provide any coherent description of what leaving the EU entailed. Lots of leave voters have wildly different notions of what they voted for. Some people wanted freedom of movement, some didn't. Some wanted to remain in the common market, some didn't.

The leave voters voted for essentially nothing. A vague collection of nonsensical promises and ideologies. This gives the government little guidance on what it has to do, hence the dozen vague statements that Theresa May thinks constitutes a plan. Having an open mandate can be a good thing some would argue, but having so little to work with means that we'll be stuck with whatever the Tories agree in just over two years time (for better or worse). This is why yesterday's court ruling makes sense - of course parliament should be voting on the details. Since the public were unable to actually reach an informed decision (thanks to the absurdly terrible campaigns on both sides), it makes sense that those who scrutinise legislation on our behalf on a daily basis are involved in the process.

We are now seven months down the line, and still don't really know what's going to happen.

I completely agree. The whole point of the MPs is to represent our interests where laws are being made or changed. It would be highly undemocratic for the Prime Minister to just go ahead and do what she wants.

 

[DarloRich]

Unfortunately the leave campaign failed to provide any coherent description of what leaving the EU entailed. Lots of leave voters have wildly different notions of what they voted for. Some people wanted freedom of movement, some didn't. Some wanted to remain in the common market, some didn't.

The leave voters voted for essentially nothing. A vague collection of nonsensical promises and ideologies. This gives the government little guidance on what it has to do, hence the dozen vague statements that Theresa May thinks constitutes a plan. Having an open mandate can be a good thing some would argue, but having so little to work with means that we'll be stuck with whatever the Tories agree in just over two years time (for better or worse). This is why yesterday's court ruling makes sense - of course parliament should be voting on the details. Since the public were unable to actually reach an informed decision (thanks to the absurdly terrible campaigns on both sides), it makes sense that those who scrutinise legislation on our behalf on a daily basis are involved in the process.

We are now seven months down the line, and still don't really know what's going to happen.

I agree - however surely we must assume the worse case scenario.

 

[EM2]

If we leave the EU in name only and nothing changes then that is not leaving the EU at all. Thankfully May and the government appear to be of the mind that things will change, and change in a big way. The whole point of voting leave, really.

And yet, Farage suggested following the model of countries that do almost exactly that might be a good idea:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/591988/Nigel-Farage-EU-European-Union-Ukip

Our membership of the EU is costing us a fortune every year, is harming our democracy and preventing our people and our country from reaching its full potential on the global stage. European countries outside the EU like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are currently thriving because they are not encumbered by Euro bailout costs, and extortionate EU membership fees.

They are confident nations grasping the opportunities that a global perspective presents.

Norway:
Member of European Economic Area, full access to single market, obliged to make a financial contribution and accept majority of EU laws, free movement applies as it does in the EU

Norway is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) - the single market - along with the 28 current EU members, Liechtenstein and Iceland.
In return for that access to the single market, it pays a contribution to the EU budget and has to sign up to all the rules of the club - including its common regulations and standards.
People from across the EU are free to live and work in Norway too, but the country is exempt from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs. The downside for Norway is that it has no say over how the rules of the single market are created.

Switzerland:
Member of the European Free Trade Association but not the EEA, access to EU market governed by series of bilateral agreements, covers some but not all areas of trade, also makes a financial contribution but smaller than Norway's, doesn't have a general duty to apply EU laws but does have to implement some EU regulations to enable trade, free movement applies

Switzerland has a free trade agreement with the EU and a number of agreements which give it access to the single market for most of its industries.
But it does not have full access to the single market for its banking sector and other parts of the services sector, which together make up almost 80% of the UK economy.
Its agreement also requires the free movement of people.

Iceland did everything that Farage doesn't want, so can't imagine that that would be a model that he would be happy for the UK to follow.

Unlike other nations, including the U.S. and Ireland, which injected billions of dollars of capital into their financial institutions to keep them afloat, Iceland placed its biggest lenders in receivership. It chose not to protect creditors of the country’s banks, whose assets had ballooned to $209 billion, 11 times gross domestic product.

“Iceland did the right thing … creditors, not the taxpayers, shouldered the losses of banks,” says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University in New York. “Ireland’s done all the wrong things, on the other hand. That’s probably the worst model.”

Ireland guaranteed all the liabilities of its banks when they ran into trouble and has been injecting capital — 46 billion euros ($64 billion) so far — to prop them up. That brought the country to the brink of ruin, forcing it to accept a rescue package from the European Union in December.

Countries with larger banking systems can follow Iceland’s example, says Adriaan van der Knaap, a managing director at UBS AG.

“It wouldn’t upset the financial system,” says Van der Knaap, who has advised Iceland’s bank resolution committees.

Arni Pall Arnason, 44, Iceland’s minister of economic affairs, says the decision to make debt holders share the pain saved the country’s future.

“If we’d guaranteed all the banks’ liabilities, we’d be in the same situation as Ireland,” says Arnason, whose Social Democratic Alliance was a junior coalition partner in the Haarde government.

“In the beginning, banks and other financial institutions in Europe were telling us, ‘Never again will we lend to you,’” Einarsdottir says. “Then it was 10 years, then 5. Now they say they might soon be ready to lend again.”

 

[miami]

If we leave the EU in name only and nothing changes then that is not leaving the EU at all. Thankfully May and the government appear to be of the mind that things will change, and change in a big way. The whole point of voting leave, really.

Really? Nobody is threatening our place in the single market, said the leave campaign.

 

[burneside]

Really? Nobody is threatening our place in the single market, said the leave campaign.

It was stated many times throughout the campaign (by both sides) that leaving the EU means leaving the single market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs91w7atjg

 

[radamfi]

It was stated many times throughout the campaign (by both sides) that leaving the EU means leaving the single market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs91w7atjg

Even Boris told us on 24 June that our ability to live and work in the EU would not be affected.

 

[EM2]

It was stated many times throughout the campaign (by both sides) that leaving the EU means leaving the single market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs91w7atjg

Plenty of leading Leave figures also said that we wouldn't leave the single market:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

 

[WelshBluebird]

But that is all a logical connection ( or at least a potential connection) with our decision to leave the EU.

You cant expect to use the snooker room and the bar if you don't pay the club subscription. You may be invited into the lounge for special occasions IF a member signs you in.

Slightly different circumstance here though. There are other countries (some of whom the Leave campaigns actually talked about in their campaign about wanting to be more like) who are not in the EU but have access to the single market, have free movement etc. It isn't like that concept is special, just means we would have to contribute and accept certain things. But we would still not be in the EU because we would not be an EU member.

If we leave the EU in name only and nothing changes then that is not leaving the EU at all.

Well it would be leaving the EU. Because the UK would not be a member of the EU anymore. It is that simple. Now that may not be the outcome you want, but it certainly would be "leaving the EU".

 

[burneside]

Plenty of leading Leave figures also said that we wouldn't leave the single market:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

That video made by Open Britain was very selectively edited. Andrew Neil pulled it, and James McGrory, to pieces in an interview on Sunday Politics a couple of months ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA&t=132s

 

[burneside]

Well it would be leaving the EU. Because the UK would not be a member of the EU anymore. It is that simple. Now that may not be the outcome you want, but it certainly would be "leaving the EU".

If we "leave" the EU but retain the "four freedoms" then we haven't left the EU at all, and the vote last June might as well not have happened. I really don't think 17.4 million who voted leave will countenance that outcome.

 

[dosxuk]

Unfortunately the leave campaign failed to provide any coherent description of what leaving the EU entailed. Lots of leave voters have wildly different notions of what they voted for. Some people wanted freedom of movement, some didn't. Some wanted to remain in the common market, some didn't.

Leave couldn't come up with a plan. Firstly we wouldn't have had the referendum yet if you'd forced all the different factions to sit down and come up with an agreed exit, since they all wanted different things. Secondly, they would have lost badly, if still remaining in the common market, with free movement had been offered, the UKIP/BNP lot would be up in arms and boycotting the vote. If it'd been hard Brexit guaranteed, you'd have all those who were wanting more globalisation and freedom from EU red tape deciding the status quo was better. You'd have been looking at a 25/75 remain win in either circumstance at least.

So they played the game, got remain caught up in trying to fight four different fronts at once, sold all the worst case scenarios (aka hard Brexit) as being project fear and not based on reality, while whipping up a distrust of the media, the government and anyone who knew what they were talking about - you know, experts. If remain had just pulled themselves into gear and actually talked about the positives of the EU membership, rather than trying to fight leave with ever increasingly ridiculous "how bad can it get" scenarios, this would all be done and dusted by now, and without a buffoon as foreign minister.

 

[Trog]

The PM will have to present the "deal" to our sovereign parliament for consideration, scrutiny and approval.

And if parliament says no will the deal suddenly get better, or remain the only thing on offer?

 

[DarloRich]

And if parliament says no will the deal suddenly get better, or remain the only thing on offer?

No - but unlike the referendum the choice will be clear.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If we "leave" the EU but retain the "four freedoms" then we haven't left the EU at all, and the vote last June might as well not have happened. I really don't think 17.4 million who voted leave will countenance that outcome.

Would we be a member of the EU? No. So then we would have left the EU.

 

[EM2]

That video made by Open Britain was very selectively edited. Andrew Neil pulled it, and James McGrory, to pieces in an interview on Sunday Politics a couple of months ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA&t=132s

Eight seconds in, it quite clearly says 'But that's not what they used to say'. It is quite clear that it is showing that the Leave campaign couldn't show a consistent position on the matter, which is what McGrory points out in the video that you linked.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm agreeing with what was in AlterEgo's link, but explaining to you why that happened.

Indeed, nobody has been able to reference this rebuttal in July, upon which furnessvale has based numerous posts.

I'm reminded of Trump's aide the other day and the phrase "alternative facts".

Providing a reference so we can verify claims made on an anonymous Internet forum is really important, else we may as well all be bellowing into the wastepaper bin.

 

[miami]

If we "leave" the EU but retain the "four freedoms" then we haven't left the EU at all, and the vote last June might as well not have happened. I really don't think 17.4 million who voted leave will countenance that outcome.

But the 47 million who didn't vote leave, we should ignore their views?

 

[burneside]

But the 47 million who didn't vote leave, we should ignore their views?

At the time of the referendum there were around 46 million on the electoral register, and 33.5 million did vote. There's a discrepancy in your figures.

 

[dosxuk]

At the time of the referendum there were around 46 million on the electoral register, and 33.5 million did vote. There's a discrepancy in your figures.

You're forgetting the significant number of people who will be affected by this vote but weren't allowed to vote themselves.

 

[Johnuk123]

You're forgetting the significant number of people who will be affected by this vote but weren't allowed to vote themselves.

Who are they ?

 

[WelshBluebird]

At the time of the referendum there were around 46 million on the electoral register, and 33.5 million did vote. There's a discrepancy in your figures.

UK population ~ 65 million.
Voted leave ~ 17 million.
Thus those who didn't vote leave ~ 48 million.

Of course that includes those too young to vote, those who don't care, those who can't legally vote etc. But just explaining where paulweaver got the number from.

Who are they ?

EU citizens living here for a start.
Then add in those too young to vote but will obviously be affected by it one way or another.

 

[EM2]

Who are they ?

The young, those who live here but are EU citizens. Y'know, just for starters...

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed so. And in 2015 we elected a party that said David Cameron would be PM. In 2016 we voted for brexit on the back of David Cameron promising he would stay as PM.

That changed, both votes are invalid.

Cameron also said he would remain as leader for a full term and no more. Plus when he was leader of the opposition he used all his PMQs questions for a few consecutive weeks to demand a General Election when Tony Blair stood aside and Gordon Brown took over.

 

[Johnuk123]

The young, those who live here but are EU citizens. Y'know, just for starters...

Don't you think there is a sound and logical reason that immature children aren't allowed to vote ?

 

[northwichcat]

UK population ~ 65 million.
Voted leave ~ 17 million.
Thus those who didn't vote leave ~ 48 million.

Of course that includes those too young to vote, those who don't care, those who can't legally vote etc. But just explaining where paulweaver got the number from.

Or those who had no idea which option would be best and choose not to pick a side.

Maybe we could say the winning category is those who thought Cameron, Osborne, Harmann, Farage, Duncan-Smith, Johnson etc. were all lying in an attempt to win votes?

 

[Johnuk123]

UK population ~ 65 million.
Voted leave ~ 17 million.
Thus those who didn't vote leave ~ 48 million.

How many of the population didn't vote Remain ?

 

[northwichcat]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/591988/Nigel-Farage-EU-European-Union-Ukip

Access to that website has been blocked by my bull**** filter.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Don't you think there is a sound and logical reason that immature children aren't allowed to vote ?

Of course this isn't a debate about this countries decision of 18 as the voting age.
However, immature children? Really? Of course you are always going to have to have some kind of cut off, but the idea that going from 17 to 18 suddenly makes you mature enough to vote is laughable. And certainly I've known 17 year olds who are more mature and more informed about political decisions than many adults before.

I see you've also conveniently ignore those from the EU living in this country. Who absolutely have the potential to be adversely affected by this, especially if May won't stop playing games.