EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[northwichcat]

if Cameron hadn't made the referendum a manifesto promise then there was a chance many would have voted UKIP, not tory in 2015. The tories thought this could have lost them the 2015 election. UKIP got 26% in the euros a year before, the biggest vote share.

so Cameron did his renegotiation and thought the referendum result would be a resounding remain win.

Cameron and the EU totally misread the UK electorate on this.

Cameron should have had a cross-party body looking at what renegotiation was needed, opposed to trying to get the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove on side. I think the thing he really didn't expect was Labour voters in towns where there's very few EU nationals living voting for Brexit as it was anti-establishment.

 

[bramling]

I disagree, I'm not fan of the PM but she's doing a job no one here could do any better under the circumstances be they Remain or Leave as she's stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to come up with a compromise that pleases everyone.

I think someone else could at least have managed not to completely mess up the last election. That was a complete disaster, and one brought about largely by May's weak campaign.

I tend towards the Conservative party, however even I find May rather a turn-off. She appears arrogant and stubborn, and I think that's a lot of her problem.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I think someone else could at least have managed not to completely mess up the last election. That was a complete disaster, and one brought about largely by May's weak campaign.

There was nothing weak about her GE campaign.... indeed as she repeatedly pointed out she was "strong and stable".... about as strong and stable as an oak leaf on a stormy November day methinks....

 

[Ken H]

You're missing the point and let me give you some examples why you are wrong:

1. You nor anyone here holds the office of Prime Minister therefore you only can judge by the media on how well she does or doesn't do well in her job bearing in mind the media are a fickle lot who will jump on any bandwagon if it suits their purpose.

2. As Prime Minister it is down to her to get a agreement thrashed out between the UK and Europe which is agreed on by all concerned.

3. Although she did not get a all out majority and is at this time being propped up by the DUP party, she is still the Prime Minister and as such has to find central ground to find a common agreement with all concerned.

4. The only issue that rabid Remainers want is to stay in the EU and they don't have any suggestions on how to actually come to a agreement on Brexit apart from coming up with We need another nationwide vote or We can cancel Brexit etc

5. The only issue that rabid Leavers want is to leave the EU at all costs and again like the rabid Remainers don't actually have any suggestions on how to come to a agreement on Brexit apart from coming up with We need a Hard Brexit or May is not doing enough to assert the UK's position.

6. As I pointed out in my post which you so kindly glossed over was the fact that instead of arguing the toss over who's policies are better, moaning about Brexit happening or moaning that not enough is being done to ensure a successful Brexit etc...

Both Remainers and Leavers need to sit down and find some common ground even if it means both sides having to compromise, this needs to happen for the greater good of the country and not just use the current status quo for well she didn't get a mandate so she can't speak for me etc...

Indeed as Jeremy Corbyn has rightfully said and it's a pity that not more actually take note of this from both Leave and Remain but he said and I quote:

"There will be some who will tell you that Brexit is a disaster for this country and some who will tell you that Brexit will create a land of milk and honey. The truth is that it’s in our hands: Brexit is what we make of it together."

Jeremy Corbyn

It was made quite clear before the referendum that 'leaving the EU' meant leaving the Single market, customs union, freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Mays draft agreement fails to do any of those 3 things.
In the government leaflet sent to every household before the referendum, it said 'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.' (https://webarchive.nationalarchives...on-for-the-uk#a-once-in-a-generation-decision)
So you can see there will be 17,410,742 people who cast their ballot on 23rd June 2016 who will see a massive broken promise, and their faith in democracy shattered.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I am not sure having the ECJ having jurisdiction over a large part of UK law is 'leaving the EU' as per the referendum. Expect trouble ahead.

With the deal currently on the table, the UK would no longer be a member of the EU. So by it's very definition we would be "leaving the EU" (as per the referendum).
Now if you want to ask if it is even worth it in that case, or any other questions about how good or bad the deal is, then fine.
But we will no longer be members of the EU, thus you cannot say we wouldn't be "leaving the EU"

It was made quite clear before the referendum that 'leaving the EU' meant leaving the Single market, customs union, freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

And yet the leave side constantly went on about the possibilities of having a Norway like deal, or staying part of the EEC etc etc.

 

[Ken H]

To an extent May's Brexit plan does have some conditions which those who voted remain will like, as well as some conditions that those who want hard Brexit will like. The problem is, as we know, there is not one form of Brexit which the majority of the population want.

do tell me about the leavers likes in mays draft. I am struggling to find any.

 

[Howardh]

There was nothing weak about her GE campaign.... indeed as she repeatedly pointed out she was "strong and stable".... about as strong and stable as an oak leaf on a stormy November day methinks....

She might have got away with it - until the minute she said she threatened to throw carers out of the family home if the cared-for had large bills. If ever a policy hadn't been thought through it was that - probably well-meaning, but when presented the way it was it became a disaster.
From that there was no recovery.

 

[furnessvale]

She might have got away with it - until the minute she said she threatened to throw carers out of the family home if the cared-for had large bills. If ever a policy hadn't been thought through it was that - probably well-meaning, but when presented the way it was it became a disaster.
From that there was no recovery.

Not forgetting Corbyn's promises about student fees and the student loan book, which convinced virtually every young person I know to vote Labour.

 

[northwichcat]

It was made quite clear before the referendum that 'leaving the EU' meant leaving the Single market, customs union, freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Mays draft agreement fails to do any of those 3 things.
In the government leaflet sent to every household before the referendum, it said 'This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.' (https://webarchive.nationalarchives...on-for-the-uk#a-once-in-a-generation-decision)
So you can see there will be 17,410,742 people who cast their ballot on 23rd June 2016 who will see a massive broken promise, and their faith in democracy shattered.

No it wasn't. From your own link:

No other country has managed to secure significant access to the single market, without having to:

• follow EU rules over which they have no real say
• pay into the EU
• accept EU citizens living and working in their country

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the single market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy

To me that reads as there's different options if we leave from a Norway style deal to a limited trade deal, like the one Canada took 7 years to negotiate. Remember the government was pro-Remain so they are dismissing a Norway style deal in favour of remaining in the EU, not dismissing a Norway style deal ahead of a hard Brexit if we vote to leave.

Then there's the fact Vote Leave campaigners were talking about the possibly of a Norway style deal until they actually won and then all of a sudden that wasn't good enough.

 

[northwichcat]

do tell me about the leavers likes in mays draft. I am struggling to find any.

How different is the deal to a Norway style deal? Every difference is something positive for those who want hard Brexit.

 

[Ken H]

How different is the deal to a Norway style deal? Every difference is something positive for those who want hard Brexit.

norway isnt leaving the EU. Norway rejected joining the EU in a referendum. but their politicians joined in all but name. Lets look at the canada-EU deal.

 

[northwichcat]

norway isnt leaving the EU. Norway rejected joining the EU in a referendum. but their politicians joined in all but name. Lets look at the canada-EU deal.

The one that your own source says could take up to 7 years to get. So, as we're leaving the EU before 2023 there's one positive for Brexiteers for starters.

 

[Howardh]

Not forgetting Corbyn's promises about student fees and the student loan book, which convinced virtually every young person I know to vote Labour.

True, there's always the push/pull factor in any election.

 

[Ken H]

The one that your own source says could take up to 7 years to get. So, as we're leaving the EU before 2023 there's one positive for Brexiteers for starters.

what source is that?

 

[northwichcat]

what source is that?

Your link in post #12574 which you claimed was proof the government told us in 2016 that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.

 

[Ken H]

Your link in post #12574 which you claimed was proof the government told us in 2016 that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.

No
I said that link showed the government promised to implement the referendum decision

My first paragraph about what 'leave' meant referred to comments made my politicians, including David Cameron and Osbourne
some clips in this tweet
https://twitter.com/YesBrexit/status/782611463697563648

Sorry of not clearer. Hope it is now.

 

[dosxuk]

It was made quite clear before the referendum that 'leaving the EU' meant leaving the Single market, customs union, freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

No it wasn't, and far from it. All of the prominent leavers were very clear throughout the campaign that leaving the EU was a separate decision to leaving the customs union, single market and other EU affiliated groupings. One of the beginnings of the "Project Fear" term was as a response to the Remain campaign pointing out that leaving the EU but staying in the single market would result in us paying into the EU budget (they need us more than we do) and limit our options for external trade deals (the German car companies won't let them boss us about).

Finally, in his Telegraph column in the immediate aftermath of the result Boris was specific in stating we would not be leaving the single market

EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.

British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.

 

[radamfi]

My Brexiteer MP, who has recently sent a letter to depose May, Tweeted to me in 2014:

"UK citizens live in and travel to many non EU countries so no reason why if we voted to leave the EU this would be a problem."

"not a problem for the Swiss or Norwegians but as I say, for electorate to decide. Important they get a chance for a choice though."

 

[Jonny]

I look forward to the point where net immigration is at a level where all that matters for a spousal visa is a genuine relationship (at present there is also a means test).

 

[WelshBluebird]

I look forward to the point where net immigration is at a level where all that matters for a spousal visa is a genuine relationship (at present there is also a means test).

The current insane situation has nothing at all to do with "net immigration" levels and everything to do with those on the right wanting to create a 'hostile environment' for anyone who isn't British or rich (indeed if it was a genuine problem with the levels of immigration, then you wouldn't be able to "buy your way in" as you can now).

 

[Jonny]

Here's a little ditty that I spotted doing the rounds on the book of faces.

(Description: Title "British Remainers", composed of clone-like individuals with exactly the same facial expression and seemingly hypnotised, one of whom is holding up a placard stating "We are individuals" while saying in unison "We want to die for Angela Merkel in her new European Empire Army")

... which is where Britain will end up if we don't get out of the EU and soon. Compulsory military service is bad enough. It would be even worse if it was in the service of something outside Britain.

 

[WelshBluebird]

... which is where Britain will end up if we don't get out of the EU and soon. Compulsory military service is bad enough. It would be even worse if it was in the service of something outside Britain.

Of course whilst in the EU we have a veto to stop things like an EU army from happening if we didn't want it. Outside of the EU we have no such ability.

And that is before you consider the and the fact that those who seem to want compulsory military service of some kind tend to be the same people who voted Brexit (aka the "things were better in the old days" crowd) and would have no chance of actually being passed, or you consider the ridiculously OTT and exaggerated nature of the image.

 

[nlogax]

... which is where Britain will end up if we don't get out of the EU and soon. Compulsory military service is bad enough. It would be even worse if it was in the service of something outside Britain.

Truly a statement fresh from the mouths of extreme Brexiteers and lunatics in tin foil hats. Looking forward to more deeply paranoid guff soon.

 

[birchesgreen]

... which is where Britain will end up if we don't get out of the EU and soon. Compulsory military service is bad enough. It would be even worse if it was in the service of something outside Britain.

Are you being serious??

 

[furnessvale]

Of course whilst in the EU we have a veto to stop things like an EU army from happening if we didn't want it. Outside of the EU we have no such ability.

Many vetoes have been abolished. I do not know if the right of the EU to create its own army is covered by a veto or not, but even so, how can anyone be sure that any veto can survive.

 

[Esker-pades]

Many vetoes have been abolished. I do not know if the right of the EU to create its own army is covered by a veto or not, but even so, how can anyone be sure that any veto can survive.

You assume that we are the only one who would block the creation of an EU army.

 

[furnessvale]

You assume that we are the only one who would block the creation of an EU army.

I make no such assumption. However, in the absence of a veto, I do not know how many objectors there would have to be before a proposal was lost.

 

[Esker-pades]

The creation of an EU Army would be such a significant change that, at the very least, an opt out would have to be provided for states who did not want to provide troops. It would be similar to the Euro in that respect: states would be encouraged (probably very strongly) but they would also be able to not engage.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The creation of an EU Army would be such a significant change that, at the very least, an opt out would have to be provided for states who did not want to provide troops. It would be similar to the Euro in that respect: states would be encouraged (probably very strongly) but they would also be able to not engage.

The problem is European history shows that countries with large armies pulled from more than one nation have a habit of "strongly encouraging" other countries to join... {think Napoleon and Hitler }

 

[Mag_seven]

Here's a little ditty that I spotted doing the rounds on the book of faces.

(Description: Title "British Remainers", composed of clone-like individuals with exactly the same facial expression and seemingly hypnotised, one of whom is holding up a placard stating "We are individuals" while saying in unison "We want to die for Angela Merkel in her new European Empire Army")

... which is where Britain will end up if we don't get out of the EU and soon. Compulsory military service is bad enough. It would be even worse if it was in the service of something outside Britain.

Why would we be afraid of an army we would be in?