EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bromley boy]

All of these are only issues because of modern nationhood, and the fact that somehow, all the land belongs to someone. I know there are 'micro-nations' such as Sealand, but even they are not truly independent.

Indeed we are, so I will leave it there.

No, issues like access to shelter, governance, healthcare, a legal system governing our interactions are all necessary for civilisation and ultimately human survival - humans being a fundamentally social species.

Nation states are an effective way of dealing with these (some do a better job than others, we live in one of the very best ones) if we are not to live in a lawless, borderless version of lord of the flies.

Likewise.

 

[Bromley boy]

However, in the case of a close result caution needs to be taken if the situation changes between the result and the result being acted on.

Oh really!?

In that case it’s interesting to note that on 24 June 2016*, in response to the following post from @Dave1987:

Scottish Nationalist have been looking for another excuse to have another referendum ever since you lost the last. I'm sure Sturgeon would be very happy to hold repeated referendums until Scotland chooses independence.

you stated:

Agreed. I doubt if 50.1% had voted for independence that Sturgeon would have ever wanted a referendum on rejoining the UK.

If 50.1% had voted remain in 2016 I somehow doubt you would now be calling for a second EU referendum to remain in the EU.

In doing so you are guilty of exactly the behaviour the previous post criticised Nicola Sturgeon for. A criticism you expressly agreed with!

So it seems you are, in fact, perfectly happy to accept a slim majority win so long as the result reflects what you personally want.

Just as I suspected all along.

*I was browsing the early pages of this thread because I’m unable to sleep and happened upon this nugget of inconsistency.

 

[northwichcat]

Oh really!?

In that case it’s interesting to note that on 24 June 2016*, in response to the following post from @Dave1987:



you stated:



If 50.1% had voted remain in 2016 I somehow doubt you would now be calling for a second EU referendum to remain in the EU.

In doing so you are guilty of exactly the behaviour the previous post criticised Nicola Sturgeon for. A criticism you expressly agreed with!

So it seems you are, in fact, perfectly happy to accept a slim majority win so long as the result reflects what you personally want.

Just as I suspected all along.

*I was browsing the early pages of this thread because I’m unable to sleep and happened upon this nugget of inconsistency.

Really?! If that's the best you can do you might as well stop posting now as you're just making yourself look stupid. The only thing that's inconsistent in this thread is you. I was going to pick up on something you said in another post which I agree with in part but I'm not going to bother now given you've ignored the fact that I've repeatedly said my main objection with the 2016 EU referendum is how the campaigning was conducted. I fail to see saying how I think Nicola Sturgeon would respond to 50.1% can be labelled my opinion given I'm not Nicola Sturgeon.

 

[SteveP29]

How would you feel if you discovered people could pay to be British citizens -without actually being British at all - and avail of all the luxuries and freedoms that comes with?

What luxuries and freedoms are they then?
The freedom to pay the over the odds for housing?
The freedom to pay over the odds for public transport?
The freedom to pay over the odds for fuel?
The freedom to pay over the odds to heat and light your home (if you can afford one)?

At least 3 billion people in the world would be financially better off moving to the UK.

If only 1% of those people availed themselves of the chance to enter a UK free of border restrictions, do you believe the country could handle the shock to its infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc?

If they work and pay tax, like the majority do, then there'd be money in the treasury to build more infrastructure to be able to handle the extra population

The main reason I have an Irish passport is because it’s part of my identity and it’s useful to have as an alternate passport to travel to certain parts of the world.

Oh well, that's alright then, just as long as you can continue to travel anywhere in the world you want because you can, f**k everyone else eh?

 

[AlterEgo]

What luxuries and freedoms are they then?
The freedom to pay the over the odds for housing?
The freedom to pay over the odds for public transport?
The freedom to pay over the odds for fuel?
The freedom to pay over the odds to heat and light your home (if you can afford one)?

That's a nice rant and yes, Britain undeniably has some problems with affordability and cost of living, but you didn't really address the issue. Can you tell me why you think Britain is not a privileged nation with luxuries?

Britain is a safe nation with developed armed forces, embassies all over the world, a comprehensive diplomatic network, a functioning if imperfect democracy, a tolerance of religious difference, better race relations than many countries, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to be something other than straight, an extremely old and developed legal system, free education, good healthcare, working emergency services, a police force which aims to police by consent, freedom to move around, and so on and so forth.

Oh well, that's alright then, just as long as you can continue to travel anywhere in the world you want because you can, f**k everyone else eh?

You will still be able to travel wherever you like after Brexit on a UK passport - this is the passport I use for the majority of my travels, and will continue to use after Brexit; the Irish one is only for use in places which are very unpleasant or anti-British.

I don't envisage long queues at passport control with my pointlessly new blue passport.

 

[furnessvale]

If they work and pay tax, like the majority do, then there'd be money in the treasury to build more infrastructure to be able to handle the extra population

By definition, the very people who would be better off entering the UK would be the ones who would be net receivers rather than net donors to the economy. Rather than improving the situation, an influx of 30 million people would be a complete disaster.

 

[AlterEgo]

By definition, the very people who would be better off entering the UK would be the ones who would be net receivers rather than net donors to the economy. Rather than improving the situation, an influx of 30 million people would be a complete disaster.

Indeed it would, which is why no developed country operates a totally open borders policy.

 

[EM2]

Back on topic...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44232266
Brexit: Ex-Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings warns of 'train wreck'

Brexit is destined to be a "train wreck" and Tory MPs should get rid of Theresa May to have any hope of staying in power, Dominic Cummings has said.

The former Vote Leave director said the civil service had made "no real preparations" for leaving the EU as most officials wanted the UK to remain.

Unless MPs "changed the political landscape", the Tories risked losing the next election to Labour, he said.

Mrs May has indicated she wants to fight the next election as leader.

In an open letter to Tory MPs and donors on his blog, Mr Cummings, who is credited with creating Vote Leave's "take back control" message and the controversial slogan about spending £350m-a-week extra on the NHS, said the government had "irretrievably botched" the Brexit process.

Their first mistake, he claims, was to trigger Article 50, the formal mechanism taking Britain out of the EU, so quickly after the June 2016 referendum, without putting in place infrastructure around the world to manage trade.

Then Theresa May promised to leave the single market and customs union, with "frictionless" trade and no change to the Irish border - things he claimed were "logically, legally and practically incompatible".

"The government effectively has no credible policy and the whole world knows it," said Mr Cummings.

He suggested government ministers who had sought to make practical preparations for Brexit were "blocked" by officials whose priority was the "maintenance of this broken system and keeping Britain as closely tied to the EU as possible".

"Whitehall's real preparations are for the continuation of EU law and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," he wrote.

"The expectation is that MPs will end up accepting the terrible agreement as voting it down would be to invite chaos.

"In short, the state has made no preparations to leave and plans to make no preparations to leave even after leaving."

 

[nlogax]

Back on topic...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44232266
Brexit: Ex-Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings warns of 'train wreck'

He won. He should get over it.

 

[NSEFAN]

By definition, the very people who would be better off entering the UK would be the ones who would be net receivers rather than net donors to the economy. Rather than improving the situation, an influx of 30 million people would be a complete disaster.

I don't think that its universally true that someone coming here is better off purely because of receiving handouts. I know people who both better off than being in their native countries and are definitely net contributors (well paid young adults with no children).

In any case this isn't really relevant to Brexit. All the soft benefits of being in the UK that were listed above (stable, functional democracy, religious tolerance etc) are things that any country can do if the people so will it.

 

[Bromley boy]

If that's the best you can do you might as well stop posting now as you're just making yourself look stupid.

Childish insults again.

The only thing that's inconsistent in this thread is you.

How?

I was going to pick up on something you said in another post which I agree with in part but I'm not going to bother now

Feel free not to.

Although that seems a curious way to debate. Surely your response to a point should be based on the content of the point rather than who has made it. I have agreed with comments of yours in the past and will probably do so again in the future (although we are unlikely to find agreement on this thread).

I've repeatedly said my main objection with the 2016 EU referendum is how the campaigning was conducted.

And have repeatedly linked this criticism to the size of leave’s majority.

I fail to see saying how I think Nicola Sturgeon would respond to 50.1% can be labelled my opinion given I'm not Nicola Sturgeon.

But that’s not my point.

My point is simply that you agreed with express criticism of a politician calling for a repeat vote to get the “right” answer but then do exactly that yourself.

It’s there in black and white.

It’s disingenuous of you to criticise the EU referendum based on anything to do with majority, campaigning or anything else when none of these issues would bother you in the slightest had you got the “right” result in the first place.

Your real issue with the 2016 vote is that it didn’t deliver the result you wanted.

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't think that its universally true that someone coming here is better off purely because of receiving handouts. I know people who both better off than being in their native countries and are definitely net contributors (well paid young adults with no children).

You’re right, it isn’t universally true, and I suspect the vast majority of immigrants are coming here to work and improve their own lives. The couple you mention have clearly succeeded in securing well paid work and are benefiting the economy - good for them.

The issue is that people seem to be proposing a completely open door policy. This would inevitably include people with no ability to speak English, no ability to access services, no ability to work etc.

Controlled migration is a good thing and is necessary for this country - but it needs to be restricted to people who can make a contribution.

The suggestion above that 30 million people could come into the U.K. and all be able to get jobs is completely bonkers. We need to create the jobs first and then allow sensible, controlled migration as a tool to assist with economic and cultural growth. Not the other way around.

In any case this isn't really relevant to Brexit. All the soft benefits of being in the UK that were listed above (stable, functional democracy, religious tolerance etc) are things that any country can do if the people so will it.

Unfortunately many countries don’t manage it - and not necessarily anything to do with the will of the people. There are plenty of dictatorships around the world.

Take a look at what is going on in Hong Kong for one thing. Increasing Chinese influence and control is nothing to do with the will of the people there.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If 50.1% had voted remain in 2016 I somehow doubt you would now be calling for a second EU referendum to remain in the EU.

But that is what Farage wanted, so why can't the remain side want a second referendum now?

 

[northwichcat]

@Bromley boy All along I've said I had an issue with how the campaigning was conducted and the fact that the result was close makes it difficult to claim there's any mandate from the public. To my knowledge there has not been any other referendum where that has ever happened before so the outcome of the 2016 referendum is new territory. I even asked you repeatedly if campaigning was carried out properly in the EC 1970s referendum and you repeatedly refused to answer saying it's irrelevant to what you're asking me, so the answer is obviously no, not to your knowledge. You know about Maradona's Hand of God goal? That's a visual representation of the stubborn stance you post on this forum.

 

[northwichcat]

If 50.1% had voted remain in 2016 I somehow doubt you would now be calling for a second EU referendum to remain in the EU.

You've obviously forgotten that my main reason for voting remain was that now is the wrong time to consider leaving the EU. Also like I've said before if the ballot paper had an option saying "Remain now, reconsider our membership in 10 years time" or similar I probably would have voted for that option. So if 50.1% voted remain I would have been more than happy with a new referendum in 2026. However, rejoining the EU after leaving isn't as easy to do as leaving at a later date, it'll cost billions more!

 

[EM2]

To my knowledge there has not been any other referendum where that has ever happened before so the outcome of the 2016 referendum is new territory

1995 Quebec independence referendum had a margin of 50.58% No to 49.42% Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#Result

 

[Domh245]

Theresa May to ask EU for transition till 2023 in bid to avoid hard border

An all-Ireland regulatory area for agriculture forms part of the UK’s solution for the Irish border aimed at breaking the impasse in Brexit talks, The Times can reveal.

The Irish government, with the full backing of the EU, has insisted that the UK provide the outline of a plan at the June EU summit. It has said that any proposed solution must ensure the border remains frictionless after Brexit or wider talks will collapse.

The British government has settled on a package of measures it hopes can get enough support in Brussels and Dublin for a withdrawal bill to be agreed.

Theresa May will ask the EU for a second transition period to run until 2023 covering customs and trade in goods to avoid a hard border in Ireland.

The prime minister’s new proposal has not yet been officially tabled in Brussels and faces opposition from EU negotiators and Brexit-supporting members of her Conservative Party.

The agreed transitional period lasts until the end of 2020. Britain will ask for a customs and regulatory alignment implementation period from 2021 to at least 2023, to avoid infrastructure or checks on the Irish border.

“It will have to be time-limited but the aim is a permanent solution for the Ireland border issue,” a source familiar with the situation said.

Under the new proposal, Britain would collect EU external tariffs, follow the bloc’s customs code and implement regulatory alignment on industrial goods. On agriculture, the source said there will have to be a separate all-Ireland agreement that would mean some checks on farm products going from Britain to Ireland.

A separate UK diplomatic source said: “There would be no checks on all-Irish products heading to the UK. For British agricultural products, checks would take place on the British side of the Irish Sea, at Holyhead for example.”

It is understood the UK government is hoping that by 2024 new “hybrid” customs arrangements, including technology and a working future trading relationship between Britain and Europe could satisfy the EU that a hard border will not emerge in Ireland.

British negotiators will argue that the deal would avoid the need for the EU’s controversial “backstop” plan to place Northern Ireland under a separate regime from the rest of the UK “unless and until” a customs solution is found.

The new proposal will be more distant than the “standstill” transitional period envisaged between March 2019 and the end of 2020 when Britain will remain fully within the EU’s single market and customs union.

It will, however, involve close regulatory alignment on goods and customs “rules of origin” potentially giving substantial powers to the EU’s Court of Justice until into the next decade.

European governments will be concerned that the proposal will be a “back door” into the single market and Tory Eurosceptics are likely to argue that the new transition period effectively extends EU control over Britain, without a role in decision-making, for up five years after Brexit.

Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, left no doubt that he wants the UK to quit the customs union as soon as possible. During a visit to Argentina, he said: “The prime minister is the custodian of the plan, which is to come out of the customs union, out of the single market and to get on with it, to get on with that project with all convenient speed, and that is what we are going to do.”

An agreement reached last December between the UK and EU included a backstop to be invoked if the two sides failed to agree a future trade deal that avoided a hard border.

When this was translated into the draft withdrawal bill in February it prompted a furious backlash from Mrs May. She said no prime minister could accept an EU protocol that could result in a border in the Irish sea. Mrs May said it was not her government’s intentions to return to a hard border and she pledged to come up with an alternative.

The Irish Central Bank has released a research paper which states that if the UK quits the customs union and single market, trade between the UK and Ireland would fall by just under 10 per cent due to non-tariff barriers that include paperwork and other burdens placed on businesses trading with the UK. In some cases there could be queues at the border of 4.5 hours.

Mark Cassidy, director of economics at the Central Bank, said: “Whilst the research focuses on a pessimistic scenario, it is vital that we understand and flag the risks to trade. The potential effect of tariffs following departure from the customs union is well documented, but the impact of non-tariff barriers has received less attention, despite existing research that finds customs delays to be one of the largest of all barriers to trade.

“It’s clear that the potential effect of Britain’s decision to leave the EU would be negative and significant for Irish-UK trade, with trade in raw materials, beverages and fresh foods most vulnerable to customs delays.”

It is progress I suppose, and gives the government 6 years to get this miracle technology working. It does mean that Brexit will have dragged on for 8 years in total though, and that there will be an election part way through.

It is also dependent on Mrs May being willing to stand up to the DUP over their insistence that the UK & NI retain regulatory alignment (unless of course the rest of the UK remains aligned as well). That and the EU accepting the proposal of course!

 

[Bromley boy]

@Bromley boy All along I've said I had an issue with how the campaigning was conducted and the fact that the result was close makes it difficult to claim there's any mandate from the public. To my knowledge there has not been any other referendum where that has ever happened before so the outcome of the 2016 referendum is new territory. I even asked you repeatedly if campaigning was carried out properly in the EC 1970s referendum and you repeatedly refused to answer saying it's irrelevant to what you're asking me, so the answer is obviously no, not to your knowledge. You know about Maradona's Hand of God goal? That's a visual representation of the stubborn stance you post on this forum.

This is yet another tangent and not really relevant to the point being made. I think this part of the conversation has been exhausted.

I have never heard of Maradona, I’m afraid. I can only assume that is something to do with football?

You've obviously forgotten that my main reason for voting remain was that now is the wrong time to consider leaving the EU. Also like I've said before if the ballot paper had an option saying "Remain now, reconsider our membership in 10 years time" or similar I probably would have voted for that option. So if 50.1% voted remain I would have been more than happy with a new referendum in 2026. However, rejoining the EU after leaving isn't as easy to do as leaving at a later date, it'll cost billions more!

When would you consider the “right time” to leave the EU given that you don’t, in fact, want to leave at all?

Leave voters want to leave the EU. Rejoining it in the future was unlikely to be foremost in their minds when they voted.

 

[northwichcat]

When would you consider the “right time” to leave the EU given that you don’t, in fact, want to leave at all?

I've answered that numerous times before. Not when we're still recovering from a huge financial collapse (which we are despite what Tory ministers are claiming), you don't do something that might create economic uncertainty if you don't have a proper rainy day fund (cutting essential services to create one doesn't count.)

Leave voters want to leave the EU. Rejoining it in the future was unlikely to be foremost in their minds when they voted.

The same ones who didn't all understand the implications of leaving? What's wrong with checking the final Brexit deal is what they want before there's no going back? Don't bother answering that, you've tried numerous times before and not come up with a reasoned answer yet.

 

[Bromley boy]

The same ones who didn't all understand the implications of leaving? What's wrong with checking the final Brexit deal is what they want before there's no going back? Don't bother answering that, you've tried numerous times before and not come up with a reasoned answer yet.

The reasoned answer I’ve made several times, along with others on here, is that:

- it’s far too nuanced a question to put to plebiscite vote;

- nobody (leave or remain) will know the full implications of leaving until years after we have done it.

Next.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The reasoned answer I’ve made several times, along with others on here, is that:

- it’s far too nuanced a question to put to plebiscite vote;

- nobody (leave or remain) will know the full implications of leaving until years after we have done it.

Next.

If you genuinely believe that then surely you must have been against the referendum in the first place as those points that you use to say we shouldn't have a second one also apply to the first.

 

[Bromley boy]

If you genuinely believe that then surely you must have been against the referendum in the first place as those points that you use to say we shouldn't have a second one also apply to the first.

The decision “in out” is a broad brush issue of constitutional change, much like electoral reform or Scottish independence.

It’s appropriate for the government to go direct to the electorate on these types of issues. The more detailed issues of how the vote is then delivered should be decided by the government. After all, that’s what we pay them for!

 

[WelshBluebird]

The decision “in out” is a broad brush issue of constitutional change, much like electoral reform or Scottish independence.

It’s appropriate for the government to go direct to the electorate on these types of issues. The more detailed issues of how the vote is then delivered should be decided by the government. After all, that’s what we pay them for!

But once again, the two points you raised (in being against a second vote) are exactly issues that many people (including myself) raised about the first vote. Leaving the EU isn't a "broad brush issue". It is a very nuanced question that most people simply do not have the knowledge to answer.

As for things being decided by government as that is what we pay them for - well yes, that is why there shouldn't have been a first referendum to begin with.

And in any case, any actual broad brush issues are generally decided by which government we vote in at a general election!

 

[Bromley boy]

But once again, the two points you raised (in being against a second vote) are exactly issues that many people (including myself) raised about the first vote. Leaving the EU isn't a "broad brush issue". It is a very nuanced question that most people simply do not have the knowledge to answer.

As for things being decided by government as that is what we pay them for - well yes, that is why there shouldn't have been a first referendum to begin with.

And in any case, any actual broad brush issues are generally decided by which government we vote in at a general election!

The question of leaving or remaining is very much a broad brush issue. It is a matter of fundamental constitutional reform.

Issues of this nature are too big and too ambiguous for the government to decide by itself. There is no “right” answer to whether the U.K. should remain in the EU. In just the same way it wouldn’t be appropriate for the government to unilaterally abolish the monarchy, declare that Scotland or Northern Ireland were no longer parts of the UK, or undertake major reform to the electoral system without a direct mandate from the electorate to do so.

You seem to forget that our current membership of the EU was itself determined by just such a referendum in the 1970s (although the 1970s version of the EU was very different to its current form).

As such it’s entirely appropriate that the government went to the people for a decision on this issue. It’s now for the government to sweat the details.

I wouldn’t rule out a further referendum on the issue in the future (10-20 years hence).

 

[Howardh]

Think they are gonna have to rename Brexit to "Northern Trains". It's timetabled, but it's not arriving on time, no-one knows if it will arrive and as, so far, there are no drivers aywhere to be seeen it might be cancelled altogether.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...y-2020-tory-mps-jacob-rees-mogg-a8367001.html

Pro-Brexit Tory MPs have agreed that staying in the EU customs union into the next decade is likely to be the “only viable option”, in a new report.

The cabinet’s failure to agree “what kind of trading and customs arrangements” it wants after the UK leaves the bloc is condemned by the all-party Brexit committee.

It concludes that, because neither option put forward by No 10 will be ready by the end of the planned transition in December 2020, remaining in the customs union for longer will be inevitable.

Significantly, the committee’s members include Jacob Rees-Mogg and other leading Brexiteers, but its report is unanimous – despite splits over key Brexit controversies in the past.

I would wager that as it looks like we will be in the Customs Union for some time to come we will also remain in the single market for some time.
We simply aren't ready, physically, to leave anything.
Brexit (and the sort of Brexit we end up with) could well be determined by the 2023 general election.

 

[northwichcat]

The decision “in out” is a broad brush issue of constitutional change, much like electoral reform or Scottish independence.

It’s appropriate for the government to go direct to the electorate on these types of issues. The more detailed issues of how the vote is then delivered should be decided by the government. After all, that’s what we pay them for!

Do you not see the irony in your logic? You think it's appropriate for the government to say we're better off in the EU but what do you think? The public are allowed disagree. However, the public are not allowed to have any say about how the government goes about leaving, they have to be trusted to deliver something they don't want to deliver! I'll bookmark that post and quote it back to you if you ever dare to post that the final Brexit deal is too soft.

 

[EM2]

The more detailed issues of how the vote is then delivered should be decided by the government. After all, that’s what we pay them for!

But once they've done all that, you don't think that they should ask 'This is what we've come up with. You all OK with that?'.

 

[Howardh]

But once they've done all that, you don't think that they should ask 'This is what we've come up with. You all OK with that?'.

Much as I agree with the sentiments, what happens if the answer's "No"? Does that mean Brexit's not hard enough; or too hard, or we want to remain after all??

The only way round is to have two or three outcomes negotiated and put those to the public and that makes everyone more certain of the direction. If we go back to the 48/52 result, and the choive was "hard" or "soft (EEA)" Brexit, I would imaging the 48 would say "soft" so all that would be needed is for around 10% of the 52 to agree to a soft Brexit and we have a result.

However, one problem now is the process is taking so long there will soon be a huge chunk of the population in their early 20's who couldn't vote + all those who have sadly left us - so an overall prediction may be futile.

Anyhow, those that created this mess - Boris, Gove,Lleadsom, Rees-Mogg, Fox etc should be up there sorting it out. The mere fact when they could have been leader they couldn't run away fast enough speaks volumes.

 

[northwichcat]

Much as I agree with the sentiments, what happens if the answer's "No"? Does that mean Brexit's not hard enough; or too hard, or we want to remain after all??

It would really need a 3 way vote using the alternative vote system to get a majority.

Anyhow, those that created this mess - Boris, Gove,Lleadsom, Rees-Mogg, Fox etc should be up there sorting it out. The mere fact when they could have been leader they couldn't run away fast enough speaks volumes.

To be fair to Fox and Gove they tried to become leader but the party didn't want them. Leadsom ran away after offending childish women, Boris chickened out after Gove stood and said Boris wasn't good enough to lead the party and Rees-Mogg must have been visiting some remote monastery at the time the leadership contest happened.

 

[Bromley boy]

Do you not see the irony in your logic? You think it's appropriate for the government to say we're better off in the EU but what do you think? The public are allowed disagree. However, the public are not allowed to have any say about how the government goes about leaving, they have to be trusted to deliver something they don't want to deliver! I'll bookmark that post and quote it back to you if you ever dare to post that the final Brexit deal is too soft.

I’m afraid I don’t follow.

I’ve said I think it’s appropriate for the government to go the electorate on issues of major constituonal reform. The fact that figures within the government were pro remain is neither here nor there (although it certainly formed part of the wealthy political establishment’s bias towards the remain camp)

It’s for the government to now implement the result of that vote. I have said repeatedly that the spirit of leaving the EU = leaving the EU and its major institutions - as we were assured we would by the remain camp!

I don’t want another plebiscite vote on the matter so, yes, if the final “leave” deal involves, say, leaving the EU but remaining in the common market/customs union (thereby remaining in all but name) I will have to lump it.

Just as you have to “lump” the result of the 2016 referendum.

In what way is my logic unsound?