EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Domh245]

Indeed.

Pathetic, isn’t it?!

This country is apparently now so limp, so weak, so reduced, that we are incapable of existing as an independent nation state.

How about showing a little pride in one’s country?

Churchill must be spinning in his grave.

We can exist as an independent nation state, but logic dictates that when you are negotiating deals with the likes of China, India, or the US, you're going to get a far better deal as a large bloc when you have comparable GDPs and populations. When one country is smaller than the other deals tend to be rather more one sided. I've plenty of pride in this country, but I firmly believe that going it alone isn't the right thing to do.

 

[muddythefish]

- I have changed my position on Leave voters, from derision to acceptance of their opinion based on their actual experiences

I understand the stance of the "left behinds" but their plight is not the fault of the EU. The economy has been run for the past 40 years for the benefit of London and the southeast. Westminster is the villain, not Brussels.

 

[Bromley boy]

We can exist as an independent nation state, but logic dictates that when you are negotiating deals with the likes of China, India, or the US, you're going to get a far better deal as a large bloc when you have comparable GDPs and populations. When one country is smaller than the other deals tend to be rather more one sided. I've plenty of pride in this country, but I firmly believe that going it alone isn't the right thing to do.

That’s probably true purely from an economic perspective. Sadly, as we all know, the EU is now a whole lot more than just a trading bloc.

The question of how well the U.K. can do on its own is still an unknown at the moment. We are a major world economy, in our own right, so I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t be able to do just fine.

 

[Bromley boy]

I understand the stance of the "left behinds" but their plight is not the fault of the EU. The economy has been run for the past 40 years for the benefit of London and the southeast. Westminster is the villain, not Brussels.

Not everyone who voted leave is a little-Englander who feels “left behind”.

Far from it.

 

[Intercity 225]

Indeed.

Pathetic, isn’t it?!

This country is apparently now so limp, so weak, so reduced, that we are incapable of existing as an independent nation state.

How about showing a little pride in one’s
country?

Churchill must be spinning in his grave.

Churchill would have been a remainer.

We don't have a political union with the EU. We are an independent state - we proved that by voting to leave the EU. The EU has never affected any major decision made by this country since we have been a member. The customs union is different; we need to belong to it. Leaving it will ruin the economy and leave it weaker and impoverished.

Brilliantly put, the notion that the UK is somehow run by the EU is a commonly believed myth which was pushed by the leave campaign and their “take back control” message.

It’s true that we choose to pool our sovereignty in certain areas with our fellow EU members in order to act in our collective best interests but we’ve never given up ownership of it and at no point have we been asked to. We also pool our sovereignty in order to be a member of many other multinational organisations however there doesn’t seem to be widespread support for us to leave NATO, the UN, the ICC, the Commonwealth etc - thankfully I should add as I support our membership of those organisations as well as the EU!

We can exist as an independent nation state, but logic dictates that when you are negotiating deals with the likes of China, India, or the US, you're going to get a far better deal as a large bloc when you have comparable GDPs and populations. When one country is smaller than the other deals tend to be rather more one sided. I've plenty of pride in this country, but I firmly believe that going it alone isn't the right thing to do.

Again I completely agree, there is no rational economic argument for leaving. Not only when it comes to establishing international trade deals as you’ve already excellently explained but also by potentially creating tariffs and having different regulatory standards to the EU itself - by far our largest trading partner. It seems inevitable that by doing so we’re going to make ourselves poorer.

I think we need to stop the negotiations now, apologise to the Europeans for wasting their time and have another referendum based on what’s unfolded since we started this process. There is no way of leaving without creating a hard border in Ireland, Kent is on track to become a huge lorry park and our economy is going to be severely damaged - if the British public still decides that’s what it wants then so be it but we definitely need to have any decision ratified by the electorate.

 

[Bromley boy]

Churchill would have been a remainer.

You claim to speak for Churchill then, do you? He’s been dead since the 1960s, so I somehow doubt you can.

He made some prescient speeches on European integration, I’ll grant you, but he was also a Victorian imperialist. I therefore rather doubt his ideal view of the UK’s integration with Europe would take the form of its current, subservient, relationship with the EU.

Brilliantly put, the notion that the UK is somehow run by the EU is a commonly believed myth which was pushed by the leave campaign and their “take back control” message.

I don’t think it has ever been suggested that the EU “runs” the UK. However it is an undemocratic, self serving institution which casts an increasing shadow over the UK’s own affairs.

Let’s get out of it now before we wake up in 10 - 15 years and find that, after many more treaty amendments have been forced through, we are indeed fully governed by the EU and have ceased to exist as a nation state. That is undoubtedly the EU’s direction of travel.

It’s true that we choose to pool our sovereignty in certain areas with our fellow EU members in order to act in our collective best interests

Ah, so surrendering our right to democratic self determination is merely “pooling our sovereignty”, is it?! What mealy-mouthed nonsense.

I didn’t realise Nick Clegg had joined the forum under the pseudonym “Intercity 225”. Welcome to the forums, Nick! I didn’t realise you liked trains.

I want an elected UK government that prioritises the UK’s best interests, thanks very much. I certainly don’t want the governance of this country to include consideration of the “collective best interests” of many nations, the best interests of whom may well be mutually exclusive to our own.

Again I completely agree, there is no rational economic argument for leaving.

But there is a very rational democratic argument. The jury is out on the economic side of things.

Anyway, who said leaving was just about economics?

 

[Bromley boy]

if the British public still decides that’s what it wants then so be it

Why can you remainers not accept that the vote has already happened, the people have already decided?!

We are already at the “so be it” stage, and have been since 2016.

You need to suck it up, get over it, stop complaining, and make the best of it.

 

[NSEFAN]

Why can you remainers not accept that the vote has already happened, the people have already decided?!

We are already at the “so be it” stage, and have been since 2016.

You need to suck it up, get over it, stop complaining, and make the best of it.

The will of the people is not some eternal, unchanging universal constant, otherwise we would only ever need to have one election. We have regular elections because the public are allowed to change their mind in light of a new political situation. The referendum campaign was all spin and very little fact, but once some kind of deal has been negotiated then we at least know where we actually stand. There's no harm in asking the question once the deal has been finalised and is ready to be actioned. If the majority are happy with the known outcomes then we should go ahead. But if the majority of the public are against the overall outcomes of the final Brexit bill then why should they be forced to go through with it? If anything, this would have been the best time to hold the referendum, not beforehand when there was next to no information to determine the real outcome.

 

[Bromley boy]

The will of the people is not some eternal, unchanging universal constant, otherwise we would only ever need to have one election. We have regular elections because the public are allowed to change their mind in light of a new political situation. There's no harm in asking the question once the deal has been finalised and is ready to be actioned. If the majority are happy with the known outcomes then we should go ahead. But if the majority of the public are against the overall outcomes of the final Brexit bill then why should they be forced to go through with it?

I don’t disagree with you (although referenda on constitutional matters are markedly different to local and parliamentary elections).

The will of the people as expressed in the 1970s referendum wasn’t an eternal vote. Neither was it in the 2016 vote.

We voted to remain in the 1970s, and did so. We voted to leave in 2016, so let’s now implement it, and live that reality. I wouldn’t rule out another vote on the matter 40 years hence.

But, for God’s sake, let’s not have another plebiscite vote on the minutiae of the leave deal. Far too complex an issue to put to the wider electorate.

Nobody knows what the outcomes will be 10-15 years hence.

 

[Intercity 225]

You claim to speak for Churchill then, do you? He’s been dead since the 1960s, so I somehow doubt you can.

He made some prescient speeches on European integration, I’ll grant you, but he was also a Victorian imperialist. I therefore rather doubt his ideal view of the UK’s integration with Europe would take the form of its current, subservient, relationship with the EU.

Churchill’s own grandson expressed that he believed he would’ve been a remainer - whilst we obviously don’t know with 100% certainty I think that’s as close as possible as we can get to an assessment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36253224

I’d also like to remind you that you were the one who stated that he’d be spinning in his grave, I was merely making a counter point.

I don’t think it has ever been suggested that the EU “runs” the UK. However it is an undemocratic, self serving institution which casts an increasing shadow over the UK’s own affairs.

Let’s get out of it now before we wake up in 10 - 15 years and find that, after many more treaty amendments have been forced through, we are indeed fully governed by the EU and have ceased to exist as a nation state. That is undoubtedly the EU’s direction of travel

There are two legislative bodies in the EU - the Council of the European Union which is comprised of the elected heads of each member state (where the major decision making takes place) and the directly elected European Parliament. How can this structure be considered undemocratic?

And your talk of a single European state happening within 10-15 years is pure sensationalist nonsense, whilst there may be some within the EU who want to achieve that goal it certainly won’t be happening in anything close to that timeframe and if the UK were to ever consider signing up to that it’d be a whole different debate and require completely separate legislation to happen - it wouldn’t happen by the means of “forced through treaty amendments” - that’s more misguided sensationalism.

Ah, so surrendering our right to democratic self determination is merely “pooling our sovereignty”, is it?! What mealy-mouthed nonsense.

We’re not surrendering our right to anything, expand on why you think we are. The fact is we live in an ever increasingly globalised world and due to continuous improvements in technology and transport that’s never going to change. As such it makes sense to pool our sovereignty in certain areas because it makes sense to do so - it’s not surrendering it, it’s using it in the most effective way to get the best results for the United Kingdom. I’ve no idea why you think that’s “mealy mouthed”.

I didn’t realise Nick Clegg had joined the forum under the pseudonym “Intercity 225”. Welcome to the forums, Nick! I didn’t realise you liked trains.

I’m actually a member of the Conservative party, my views are more closely aligned to that of Michael Heseltine or Ken Clarke than Nick Clegg but Clegg talks a lot of sense when it comes to Europe and the coalition he played a key part in provided some of the best governance this country has seen in recent years.

I want an elected UK government that prioritises the UK’s best interests, thanks very much. I certainly don’t want the governance of this country to include consideration of the “collective best interests” of many nations, the best interests of whom may well be mutually exclusive to our own

We already have this, always have had this and always will have this.

The fact is that our own best interests are aligned with our neighbours the vast majority of the time so it makes sense for us to be in a form of union with them. If you disagree please provide some examples of when the EU has acted against the UK’s best interest, I’m sure that they’ll be some but they’ll be minor in the grand scheme of things and far outweighed by the number of times it’s worked in our favour.

Anyway, who said leaving was just about economics?

I never said it was but there’s no doubting it should be a major consideration.

 

[Intercity 225]

Why can you remainers not accept that the vote has already happened, the people have already decided?!

We are already at the “so be it” stage, and have been since 2016.

You need to suck it up, get over it, stop complaining, and make the best of it.

It’s because it was a very close result, far closer than the 1975 referendum and it’s important that the majority of the public are satisfied with the end result. Both the official remain and leave campaigns spouted a plethora of nonsense prior to the referendum and now the facts are becoming known the debate has moved on.

You were previously talking about the importance of democracy so I can’t understand why you’d take issue with a second vote.

 

[AlterEgo]

I understand the stance of the "left behinds" but their plight is not the fault of the EU. The economy has been run for the past 40 years for the benefit of London and the southeast. Westminster is the villain, not Brussels.

Yes, and the vote to leave was basically just a big middle finger to all the smug elites who have been telling the white working class what’s good for them for 40 years.

Yes, Australia hasn't decided to join a political union with New Zealand, and Uruguay hasn't joined a political union with Argentina, and the US hasn't joined a union with Caneda, but the UK is engaged in exceptionalism because it has declined to remain in the EU!

You don’t “engage” in exceptionalism so much as it permeates public thinking. America is the prime example of exceptionalist thinking so I’m confused to see that listed as an example. Australia is also an exceptionalist nation at heart.

British exceptionalism revolves around a number of things. It’s the cultural belief that Britain isn’t like the rest of Europe, because of our ancient history of parliamentarianism, our geographic location, our history of separation from the Catholic Church, our former imperialism, our distinctive culture, the fact we precipitated the world’s Premium lingua franca, our strong military history and ability to influence events on a worldwide scale, in fact lots of things.

Britain is indeed an exceptional nation in the context of Europe. It was exceptionalism and self belief that drove Brexit - the idea that Britain was better off out of the EU, didn’t need its influence or structures, and the refusal to believe the EU knew what was best for Britain.

I have difficulty imagining how our interests will be preserved overall through our departure, but I also think that a lot of people just don’t care. I think many voters simply wanted out and priced that freedom more highly than anything else.

My hope is that the EU implodes in the next 10-15 years so Britain will be seen as wise and ahead of the curve. Another migrant crisis will do it; that was handled dreadfully. A lot of people remember the pressure Europe put on Britain to accept immigrants totally unsuited to our way of life; many wanted to come to Britain despite it being one of the furthest countries away from their first point of “safety” within Europe.

 

[AlterEgo]

There are two legislative bodies in the EU - the Council of the European Union which is comprised of the elected heads of each member state (where the major decision making takes place) and the directly elected European Parliament. How can this structure be considered undemocratic?

Fundamentally, you cannot have a democracy without a demos - that is, a somewhat homogenous group of people who all share the same interests and culture, who voluntary commit to a shared political process. The simple fact that the UK voted to leave is proof in itself that at least from a British perspective, there is no demos. Most British people don’t feel especially European.

Regardless of the structures of the EU, it cannot be a proper democracy.

You were previously talking about the importance of democracy so I can’t understand why you’d take issue with a second vote.

Democracy doesn’t just mean everyone having a vote on something. It’s not as simple as that.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, and the vote to leave was basically just a big middle finger to all the smug elites who have been telling the white working class what’s good for them for 40 years.




You don’t “engage” in exceptionalism so much as it permeates public thinking. America is the prime example of exceptionalist thinking so I’m confused to see that listed as an example. Australia is also an exceptionalist nation at heart.

British exceptionalism revolves around a number of things. It’s the cultural belief that Britain isn’t like the rest of Europe, because of our ancient history of parliamentarianism, our geographic location, our history of separation from the Catholic Church, our former imperialism, our distinctive culture, the fact we precipitated the world’s Premium lingua franca, our strong military history and ability to influence events on a worldwide scale, in fact lots of things.

Britain is indeed an exceptional nation in the context of Europe. It was exceptionalism and self belief that drove Brexit - the idea that Britain was better off out of the EU, didn’t need its influence or structures, and the refusal to believe the EU knew what was best for Britain.

I have difficulty imagining how our interests will be preserved overall through our departure, but I also think that a lot of people just don’t care. I think many voters simply wanted out and priced that freedom more highly than anything else.

My hope is that the EU implodes in the next 10-15 years so Britain will be seen as wise and ahead of the curve. Another migrant crisis will do it; that was handled dreadfully. A lot of people remember the pressure Europe put on Britain to accept immigrants totally unsuited to our way of life; many wanted to come to Britain despite it being one of the furthest countries away from their first point of “safety” within Europe.

Whether our interests are served by leaving the EU or not, I don't see how this country can be described as engaged in "exceptionalism" when really we're no different from the vast majority of countries around the world in that we choose to be self-governing.

It is the EU which is exceptional in the level of integration that it requires of its member states.

 

[birchesgreen]

No the EU doesn't run us, we are part of the EU there is no them and us, we are part of the "them". Unfortunately the view that we are somehow dominated by the EU has persisted and has landed us in the current mess...

 

[AlterEgo]

Whether our interests are served by leaving the EU or not, I don't see how this country can be described as engaged in "exceptionalism" when really we're no different from the vast majority of countries around the world in that we choose to be self-governing.

It is the EU which is exceptional in the level of integration that it requires of its member states.

I don’t think you’ve understood the context in which I’m saying that Britain is exceptionalist.

 

[yorksrob]

I don’t think you’ve understood the context in which I’m saying that Britain is exceptionalist.

Perhaps its semantics. I'm sure every country believes itself to be "exceptional" to some degree, which is why the EU seems such a strange institution to my mind.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes, Australia hasn't decided to join a political union with New Zealand, and Uruguay hasn't joined a political union with Argentina, and the US hasn't joined a union with Caneda, but the UK is engaged in exceptionalism because it has declined to remain in the EU!

Are you being serious? Some of the countries you've named are bigger than the EU, while some Eurosceptics are scared of the EU becoming more like the United States.

A more relevant question would be why doesn't California declare full independence from the USA, surely if Britain is better off on its own then California will be as well.

 

[yorksrob]

Are you being serious? Some of the countries you've named are bigger than the EU, while some Eurosceptics are scared of the EU becoming more like the United States.

A more relevant question would be why doesn't California declare full independence from the USA, surely if Britain is better off on its own then California will be as well.

The United States of America is culturally one nation and has been at least since the conclusion of their civil war. The European Union is a supranational organisation and as such, requires a very unusual degree of integration from it's member nations.

 

[EM2]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/revealed-plans-for-doomsday-no-deal-brexit-02mld2jg2

Britain would be hit with shortages of medicine, fuel and food within a fortnight if the UK tries to leave the European Union without a deal, according to a Doomsday Brexit scenario drawn up by senior civil servants for David Davis.

Whitehall has begun contingency planning for the port of Dover to collapse “on day one” if Britain crashes out of the EU, leading to critical shortages of supplies.

Last month officials in Davis’s Brexit department and the departments of health and transport drew up scenarios for a no-deal Brexit — a mild one, a severe one and one dubbed “Armageddon”.

A source said: “In the second scenario, not even the worst, the port of Dover will collapse on day one.

The rest of the article is paywalled.

 

[northwichcat]

The United States of America is culturally one nation and has been at least since the conclusion of their civil war. The European Union is a supranational organisation and as such, requires a very unusual degree of integration from it's member nations.

You were asking why the USA hadn't formed a EU style agreement with Canada, the answer is because it's big enough already.

Whether the US is 'culturally one nation' is very debatable. The country itself has no official language and only 31 states have declared English as an official language of their state. One modern argument is the USA is effectively 11 different nations within one country.

 

[yorksrob]

You were asking why the USA hadn't formed a EU style agreement with Canada, the answer is because it's big enough already.

Whether the US is 'culturally one nation' is very debatable. The country itself has no official language and only 31 states have declared English as an official language of their state. One modern argument is the USA is effectively 11 different nations within one country.

Whatever the cultural divisions of the United States, they don't tend to fit along state lines.

I think it's probably true that we probably had the best compromise with our "half in, half out" status pre referendum. However, I still also believe that the European Community took a fundamentally wrong turn at the Maastricht treaty. It should have stayed a loose community of nations, rather than trying to accumulate the trappings of a nation.

 

[Howardh]

T
We are a major world economy, in our own right, so I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t be able to do just fine.

The first bit's correct as of today - and we're a major economy and we're in the EU. After (if) we leave then the second part comes into play - it's how we are treated by other countries. That's the great unknown and the attitude of Trump should be a huge warning flag - we don't have a right to any trade deals anywhere.
so -
1. Who can we sell our goods to that can't source those goods of similar quality cheaper from somewhere else? For example, is there anything China doesn't make...?? If we are to compete with countries like China won't we have to reduce our wages to get the base costs down??
2. If we can find somewhere willing to buy our stuff, what would we have to give back in return? More visas?
3. Something we are good at - because of our climate - is agriculture, but Mogg keeps telling us we can import cheap beef and chicken (etc) from the US - great until one asks what happens then to our farms that have been undercut, and those farms that we are expecting to sell produce to the restof the world.
That's not to say we don't produce specialist stuff brilliantly - our science, tech and research/development, our universities...top class. But how much of an increase can we find...and we aren't the only ones that can do all that scientific stuff...there's India, China, Japan, Korea, USA....
Brexit's taking a huge gamble and, so far, there's very little evidence of tangible benefit for the majority of us. Please post something if there is.

 

[adrock1976]

Having caught up with a few pages so far (I'm presently at the end of page 287 from 297 in total at the time of this post), to me the Irish conundrum would be complex assuming the status quo is retained. As mentioned in previous posts, the UK and Ireland have the Common Travel Agreement which may or may not be compatible with the freedom of movement between the UK, Ireland, and the remaining EU post Brexit.

Furthermore, Northern Ireland mostly voted to remain, alongside with Scotland and Gibraltar. The suggestions of hard borders between the UK and Ireland I believe neither the UK nor any of the Northern Irish people would want to return to those days before the Good Friday Agreement (if my memory is right), which helped remove the borders/checkpoints between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

In relation to Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has made several offers to Theresa May for Scotland to be involved in Brexit discussions, but has not come to fruition. There is a democratic deficit in that Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar all voted to remain, but do not have much input in trying to get a good Brexit deal. Although I am not a supporter of the SNP's version of Scottish independence (I am more of a progressive federalism person that would like to see power devolved to the regions and not just to Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Stormont), in the twenty years or so that I have resided in Scotland, I do understand the various catalysts of civic Scottish nationalism. One of these is the results of the General Elections since 1979 in relation to how Scotland has voted, which I have summarised below.

1979: Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1983: Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1987: Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1992: Mainly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a late swing during the day)
1997: Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2001: Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2005: Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2010: Mainly Labour, got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. It is noted that with the exception of my constituency Glasgow North East that was held by the former Speaker Michael Martin (the 2005 election was obviously a neutral candidate) and reverted to Labour in 2010, all of the constituencies did not change parties at all. This sent a clear message to David Cameron and Gideon George Osborne that they had no mandate to impose cuts on Scotland.
2015: Overwhelmingly SNP, got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in polling methods of the surveys that initially had a possibility of a rainbow coalition)
2017: Mainly SNP (albeit heavily reduced compared to 56 MPs in 2015), got minority Conservative with some support from Northern Ireland's DUP (which the top people were once ringleaders in the UVF during the Troubles)

As can be seen from the above summary of General Elections since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for. Depending upon how the Brexit negotiations progress and what is offered to the UK, I do understand the recent suggestions of a second Scottish independence referendum, even though I would not be enthusiastic about it so soon after the 2014 referendum.

 

[Bromley boy]

Churchill’s own grandson expressed that he believed he would’ve been a remainer - whilst we obviously don’t know with 100% certainty I think that’s as close as possible as we can get to an assessment.

I disagree. I think his grandson should be ashamed of himself for using his grandfather’s name in vain and putting words into his long dead mouth.

I’d also like to remind you that you were the one who stated that he’d be spinning in his grave, I was merely making a counter point.

Touché.

There are two legislative bodies in the EU - the Council of the European Union which is comprised of the elected heads of each member state (where the major decision making takes place) and the directly elected European Parliament. How can this structure be considered undemocratic?

EU legislation is originated by the unelected commission and rubber stamped by the parliament. That is in no way democratic (it would be like the U.K. House of Lords originating legislation and this then being amended by the commons, rather then the other way around).

There are good economic arguments in favour of remaining, but let’s not kid ourselves that the EU is in any way democratic. If you prioritise the economic side of things over democratic self determination that’s fine - but call it what it is.

And your talk of a single European state happening within 10-15 years is pure sensationalist nonsense, whilst there may be some within the EU who want to achieve that goal it certainly won’t be happening in anything close to that timeframe and if the UK were to ever consider signing up to that it’d be a whole different debate and require completely separate legislation to happen - it wouldn’t happen by the means of “forced through treaty amendments” - that’s more misguided sensationalism.

That is undeniably the direction of travel of the entire project. As you yourself admit many EU politicians aspire to just such a union.

Look at the passage of the Lisbon treaty. In what way was that not forced through?

We’re not surrendering our right to anything, expand on why you think we are. The fact is we live in an ever increasingly globalised world and due to continuous improvements in technology and transport that’s never going to change. As such it makes sense to pool our sovereignty in certain areas because it makes sense to do so - it’s not surrendering it, it’s using it in the most effective way to get the best results for the United Kingdom. I’ve no idea why you think that’s “mealy mouthed”.

Sovereignty is not something that can be pooled, it is something you either have or you don’t. I don’t want the highest court of appeal in this country to be the ECJ. I don’t want the ability of the U.K. government in parliament to legislate as it deems fit, in its sole discretion, to be fettered by obligations owed to unelected, unaccountable EU overlords.

That’s before you even get into the question of how the EU is supposed to represent its populous in a democratic fashion. I would suggest it simply cannot. We hear enough on these pages about how Westminster fails to represent Yorkshire or Wales. Those criticisms are perfectly valid. On that basis, how is Brussels supposed to simultaneously represent Piraeus, Madrid, Frankfurt, Hull etc.?

We are all lucky to live in a mature, benign democracy. I think our good fortune has led some of us to become intellectually lazy and to forget just what that democracy means. The freedoms we enjoy now must be robustly defended. Part of doing that ensuring we retain the ability to govern ourselves and determine our own destiny.

I’m actually a member of the Conservative party, my views are more closely aligned to that of Michael Heseltine or Ken Clarke than Nick Clegg but Clegg talks a lot of sense when it comes to Europe and the coalition he played a key part in provided some of the best governance this country has seen in recent years.

Nick Clegg is a cowardly turncoat whose desire for lofty political status led him to betray the ideals of those who voted for him. I say that as someone right of centre.

He is also a member of the wealthy political establishment so of course he wanted to remain. So did Boris Johnson.

We already have this, always have had this and always will have this.

The fact is that our own best interests are aligned with our neighbours the vast majority of the time so it makes sense for us to be in a form of union with them.

We won’t have it if the sovereignty of the U.K. parliament is frittered away, bit by bit, treaty by treaty, as has been happening over the last thirty years or so.

Agreed being in a “union” with our neighbours is a good thing. I would be wholeheaetedly in favour of remaining is the EU still resembles the original economic trading bloc it began life as.

I disagree that a union needs to be a political project to create a United States of Europe.

I never said it was but there’s no doubting it should be a major consideration.

Agreed.

 

[Bromley boy]

I have difficulty imagining how our interests will be preserved overall through our departure, but I also think that a lot of people just don’t care. I think many voters simply wanted out and priced that freedom more highly than anything else.

A most succinct description, which accurately describes my viewpoint.

We may be economically poorer outside the EU, we may prosper, nobody knows as yet. My money is (quite literally, as a homeowner in London) on the latter.

Either way, I. Just. Don’t. Care.

For me, preserving the ability of this little nation of ours to determine its own destiny, trumps any and all economic arguments.

 

[mmh]

It's a shame President Obama never got round to starting the United States' political union with Mexico and Canada.

There's an interesting aside relating to Obama. We're often told the EU referendum result was too close to be conclusive (despite a 1.3 million majority from the biggest turnout since 1992)

The result was 51.89% to 48.11%

I've never once heard the same people argue that Obama's 2008 win with 52.92% against 45.66% (or the 2012 win with 51.06%!) was too close and suggest the Americans should have kept George W Bush in office and hold re-elections until the numbers were better.

 

[Bromley boy]

Please post something if there is.

Taking back control springs to mind.

 

[EM2]

Taking back control springs to mind.

Of what?

 

[Bromley boy]

Of what?

Just as I’ve outlined above, really.

I suspect you and I will never reach consensus on this matter, just as we fail to in most of our exchanges on here. You have previously stated that you aspire to a utopian, borderless world, and do not believe the existence of independent nation states is necessary or desirable.

Fair enough - that’s your viewpoint - and it’s a perfectly valid one. Needless to say, it’s a viewpoint I fundamentally disagree with.