Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[DynamicSpirit]

That is only what brexiters have had for the last 40 years.

No it isn't. The point is that, since the referendum, many Brexit supporters, and much of the media, have been consistently trying shut 'remainers' up by falsely making out that it was somehow undemocratic/unpatriotic for them to argue their case now that the referendum had happened. As far as I'm aware, that is not the situation Brexiters have been in at any time during the last few decades: You've always been free to make your case without the kind of smearing that has been going on towards remainers in the past year.

 

[Howardh]

No it isn't. The point is that, since the referendum, many Brexit supporters, and much of the media, have been consistently trying shut 'remainers' up by falsely making out that it was somehow undemocratic/unpatriotic for them to argue their case now that the referendum had happened. As far as I'm aware, that is not the situation Brexiters have been in at any time during the last few decades: You've always been free to make your case without the kind of smearing that has been going on towards remainers in the past year.

Yes, and now Brexiters are going to have to put up with 40 years (hopefully a lot, lot less) of us Returners loudly making our case to go back. And for those who find themselves on the dole because their company can't compete, even if they voted Leave in the first place, may well be very reassured.

It will be very interesting if, in the next few years, to find out how "democratic" Brexiters are should the tide turn to us going back into the EU, will they be democratic and "allow" a further referendum allowing the return, or "no, you had your chance, that's it" and leave us all wondering what sort of "democracy" we have introduced?

If it's the latter, be prepared for a "IN EU" party to be formed, and see how it goes in future General Elections.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes, and now Brexiters are going to have to put up with 40 years (hopefully a lot, lot less) of us Returners loudly making our case to go back. And for those who find themselves on the dole because their company can't compete, even if they voted Leave in the first place, may well be very reassured.

It will be very interesting if, in the next few years, to find out how "democratic" Brexiters are should the tide turn to us going back into the EU, will they be democratic and "allow" a further referendum allowing the return, or "no, you had your chance, that's it" and leave us all wondering what sort of "democracy" we have introduced?

If it's the latter, be prepared for a "IN EU" party to be formed, and see how it goes in future General Elections.

Indeed just as one Brexit supporter said on the news last year that she had spent decades waiting for a chance to leave the EU, I will wait my chance to get us back in the EU at the first opportunity which I don't believe will be that long when the EU stick the proverbial two fingers up to May. She won't get a good deal so she will have to walk away with no deal, with the consequences of doing so.

 

[furnessvale]

I am fairly certain that again, despite uselessness, he isnt a dictator.

Very true. In order to become a dictator you first of all have to gain power, either through the ballot box or by force.

Then you decide no further elections are necessary!

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, and now Brexiters are going to have to put up with 40 years (hopefully a lot, lot less) of us Returners loudly making our case to go back. And for those who find themselves on the dole because their company can't compete, even if they voted Leave in the first place, may well be very reassured.

It will be very interesting if, in the next few years, to find out how "democratic" Brexiters are should the tide turn to us going back into the EU, will they be democratic and "allow" a further referendum allowing the return, or "no, you had your chance, that's it" and leave us all wondering what sort of "democracy" we have introduced?

If it's the latter, be prepared for a "IN EU" party to be formed, and see how it goes in future General Elections.

Sadly I fear the EU is in a very slow, but terminal decline. I've felt that for a long time and voted Remain because I simply felt we were better off in a managed decline with predictable outcomes than what we have now.

I don't think the EU will exist in the form that it currently does in 20 years and may be totally unrecognisable.

 

[Howardh]

Sadly I fear the EU is in a very slow, but terminal decline. I've felt that for a long time and voted Remain because I simply felt we were better off in a managed decline with predictable outcomes than what we have now.

I don't think the EU will exist in the form that it currently does in 20 years and may be totally unrecognisable.

It's a good point. If it were declining - even though more and more countries want to join - then it woudn't necessarily disappear, it would probably split into two or three, we would be with the "richer" countries, UK, IRL, NL, B, F, LUX, DK etc; there may be a Mediterranean Alliance (P, ES, I, GR, ALB etc) and the former east, so there would be a general organisation of free trade - but restrictions on worker's movements between the three groups rather than between countries.

I genuinely think is we were part if Group I so we have FoM only between us and that small group named above, then we wouldn't be leaving.

If that grouping system was flexible enough, should countries improve financially then they can certainly be promoted (or demoted).

 

[furnessvale]

It's a good point. If it were declining - even though more and more countries want to join - then it woudn't necessarily disappear, it would probably split into two or three, we would be with the "richer" countries, UK, IRL, NL, B, F, LUX, DK etc; there may be a Mediterranean Alliance (P, ES, I, GR, ALB etc) and the former east, so there would be a general organisation of free trade - but restrictions on worker's movements between the three groups rather than between countries.

I genuinely think is we were part if Group I so we have FoM only between us and that small group named above, then we wouldn't be leaving.

If that grouping system was flexible enough, should countries improve financially then they can certainly be promoted (or demoted).

You are now setting up scenarios that were not on offer, and IMO would never be put on offer by the self serving EU elite.

It is quite possible that another scenario would have resulted in a different referendum result, possibly including my own vote.

The EU blew it. They wouldn't even give Cameron a crumb to bring back to the UK and the result was inevitable. Any dilution of EU central power is off their menu.

 

[Dave1987]

Watching Nick Robinson doing his election takeaway thing I think their is enormous naivety in this country. One guy saying he has never even considered voting Tory before but he believes May is the only one that will "stand up to the EU". Do these people realise how much of the UK economy relies on trade with the EU? "Standing up to the EU" is not conducive to getting a free trade deal with them. We need them more than they need us. Only 16% of their trade is to us whereas 48% of our GDP is with them. Wake up people. The economy relies on trade with the EU and "standing up to them isn't going to get that deal.

 

[furnessvale]

Watching Nick Robinson doing his election takeaway thing I think their is enormous naivety in this country. One guy saying he has never even considered voting Tory before but he believes May is the only one that will "stand up to the EU". Do these people realise how much of the UK economy relies on trade with the EU? "Standing up to the EU" is not conducive to getting a free trade deal with them. We need them more than they need us. Only 16% of their trade is to us whereas 48% of our GDP is with them. Wake up people. The economy relies on trade with the EU and "standing up to them isn't going to get that deal.

48% of our exports, and falling, may well be with the EU but that is a far cry from our GDP.

Around 10% of our GDP is connected to the EU. When we leave, 90% of our GDP will not be subject to EU control.

 

[EM2]

The EU blew it. They wouldn't even give Cameron a crumb to bring back to the UK and the result was inevitable. Any dilution of EU central power is off their menu.

He got plenty of concessions, just not enough for hardcore Europhobes.

 

[EM2]

Around 10% of our GDP is connected to the EU. When we leave, 90% of our GDP will not be subject to EU control.

If only 10% of our GDP is connected to the EU, then surely 90% of it is *already* not subject to EU control.

 

[furnessvale]

If only 10% of our GDP is connected to the EU, then surely 90% of it is *already* not subject to EU control.

Wrong. EU regulations apply to ALL output within the UK whether it is exported to the EU, exported elsewhere or used for domestic consumption.

Edit to add: That is my major complaint with the EU. If EU regs only applied as you think, I would have voted to remain. After all, if we export to ANY country we have to abide by their requirements or it isn't allowed in.

 

[furnessvale]

He got plenty of concessions, just not enough for hardcore Europhobes.

So all this talk by Europhiles of staying within the EU and changing it from within is just that, talk.

 

[Mvann]

So all this talk by Europhiles of staying within the EU and changing it from within is just that, talk.

Yes. The likelyhood of anything meaningful changing in the EU is very low.

 

[Barn]

Wrong. EU regulations apply to ALL output within the UK whether it is exported to the EU, exported elsewhere or used for domestic consumption.

Edit to add: That is my major complaint with the EU. If EU regs only applied as you think, I would have voted to remain. After all, if we export to ANY country we have to abide by their requirements or it isn't allowed in.

Correct. The other major misconception with the EU is that many people think it sets only regulatory minimum standards. This is true for workers' rights, but for single market standards the EU's requirements are actually the maximum (because the whole point is that European exporters should only have one specification to work to).

This is good news for exporting businesses, but this means that the UK cannot unilaterally require higher safety standards, as London discovered when its mayors have looked at mandating safer lorries to reduce cyclist casualties. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this, because it is true that safety requirements can be used as a front for protectionism, but it certainly contributes to the feeling that domestic government is not empowered to make improvements in areas in which the EU has competency.

 

[EM2]

Wrong. EU regulations apply to ALL output within the UK whether it is exported to the EU, exported elsewhere or used for domestic consumption.

Apologies, I misunderstood your point. However, I would be very disappointed if leaving the EU were to mean a reduction in standards (especially those of safety).

 

[EM2]

So all this talk by Europhiles of staying within the EU and changing it from within is just that, talk.

We managed to change it while we were in it, and so can others if they wish. Once we leave, we have no chance.

 

[furnessvale]

We managed to change it while we were in it, and so can others if they wish. Once we leave, we have no chance.

Once we leave, we have no need to. If the EU wants to bury itself in ever more regulation it is free to do so.

 

[furnessvale]

Apologies, I misunderstood your point. However, I would be very disappointed if leaving the EU were to mean a reduction in standards (especially those of safety).

I have no desire to reduce standards but it is surely sensible that regulations are tailored to UK conditions which can be very different from, say, Romania. As it stands, the EU is constantly trying to impose common rules for 28 very different countries.

 

[EM2]

I have no desire to reduce standards but it is surely sensible that regulations are tailored to UK conditions which can be very different from, say, Romania. As it stands, the EU is constantly trying to impose common rules for 28 very different countries.

I'd say the exact reverse.
It's surely more sensible that countries such as Romania should have standards as high as the UK.

 

[Barn]

I'd say the exact reverse.
It's surely more sensible that countries such as Romania should have standards as high as the UK.

Why is it our business what standards are imposed in Romania? They'll have to apply British standards to sell here, and their own domestic standards are nothing to do with us.

 

[EM2]

Why is it our business what standards are imposed in Romania? They'll have to apply British standards to sell here, and their own domestic standards are nothing to do with us.

For a country that prides itself on its tolerance and fairness, it's because, not for the first time in this thread, it's for the greater good.
Unless you are implying that it's OK for Eastern Europeans to die because of things like lax health and safety?

 

[Barn]

For a country that prides itself on its tolerance and fairness, it's because, not for the first time in this thread, it's for the greater good.
Unless you are implying that it's OK for Eastern Europeans to die because of things like lax health and safety?

What has writing domestic standards in other countries got to do with tolerance and fairness? It's as if you're saying "Where would these poor stupid countries be without clever sophisticated countries doing their thinking for them"? That's a rather patronising argument. Often it's leavers who are accused of harking back to imperialistic thinking.

 

[KN1]

For a country that prides itself on its tolerance and fairness, it's because, not for the first time in this thread, it's for the greater good.
Unless you are implying that it's OK for Eastern Europeans to die because of things like lax health and safety?

Why stop at Romania ?

 

[Mvann]

For a country that prides itself on its tolerance and fairness, it's because, not for the first time in this thread, it's for the greater good.
Unless you are implying that it's OK for Eastern Europeans to die because of things like lax health and safety?

We are talking standards as in specifications, not all of which is to do with health and safety.

 

[KN1]

Forget 52%. The rise of the “Re-Leavers” mean the pro-Brexit electorate is 68%

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/forget-52-rise-re-leavers-mean-pro-brexit-electora/

How can it be true when all we've heard for months is how virtually EVERY leaver regrets their Out vote, seems like the Remainers have got it very wrong - again.

 

[EM2]

What has writing domestic standards in other countries got to do with tolerance and fairness? It's as if you're saying "Where would these poor stupid countries be without clever sophisticated countries doing their thinking for them"? That's a rather patronising argument. Often it's leavers who are accused of harking back to imperialistic thinking.

A patronising argument? So it's OK for us to go and drop bombs in Libya and Syria because we don't like who is in charge (and then leave the place to go to crap), but not OK to use our expertise to advise and assist to help raise living standards? I guess you'd prefer it if we didn't have a foreign aid budget either.

 

[EM2]

Why stop at Romania ?

Indeed. Why stop at Romania? Why not carry on and help other countries?

 

[KN1]

Indeed. Why stop at Romania? Why not carry on and help other countries?

Indeed, why stop at Europe in fact, the amount of spare cash we have swilling around surely means we should be propping up every despot country in the globe.

 

[EM2]

Indeed, why stop at Europe in fact, the amount of spare cash we have swilling around surely means we should be propping up every despot country in the globe.

Just think of it as consultancy on a global scale