Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[steveT350C]

cookie118 said:

steveT350C said:

cookie118 said:

steveT350C said:

How many people voted remain because the BBC told them to?

How many people voted leave because the Sun/Mail/Express told them immigrants/the EU/the 'establishment' were the source of all their woes?

'source of their woes'?

You think people voted brexit because being out of the EU would solve their 'woes'????

Jesus wept.

'BBC told them'

You think that people voted to remain because 'the BBC told them'????

Jesus wept.

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

[Elysium]

don4l said:

rscott said:

That's where you're making assumptions about Remainers again.

Just because some of us didn't want to leave the EU, didn't mean we wanted ever closer union. Some of us would have preferred to remain pretty much as we were.
There were degrees of remain just as there are degrees of Brexit..

That, unfortunately, was never an option.

This is the nub of the argument.

Most Remainers didn't believe that "ever closer union" was happening.

Cameron came back from his "renegotiation" and told us that we would be exempt from future "closer union".

Some of us could see that this was a blatent lie. Some of you could not.

All directives create more "union", and therefore without an exemption from the implementation of directives, we could not escape "ever closer union".

You are interpreting 'ever closer union' as a loss of sovereignty and the physical joining of nations in a superstate.

That is not the only interpretation. I would argue that being united is not a bad thing. Our country is (was) a United Kingdom. A more positive view of 'ever closer union' could easily be about alignment toward shared interests and common goals.

The UK has been very much on the periphery of the EU. Outside Schengen. Wilfully disengaged from the politics and mechanics of the EU itself. There is no reason at all why we could not have continued with that partial engagement.

There is a deep arrogance in your post. The concept that you saw through Cameron's lies and the facade of the EU to it's true nature, whilst the foolish remainers did not. Your arrogance leads to prejudice and it evidently also clouds your understanding.

[B'stard Child]

Elysium said:

don4l said:

rscott said:

That's where you're making assumptions about Remainers again.

Just because some of us didn't want to leave the EU, didn't mean we wanted ever closer union. Some of us would have preferred to remain pretty much as we were.
There were degrees of remain just as there are degrees of Brexit..

That, unfortunately, was never an option.

This is the nub of the argument.

Most Remainers didn't believe that "ever closer union" was happening.

Cameron came back from his "renegotiation" and told us that we would be exempt from future "closer union".

Some of us could see that this was a blatent lie. Some of you could not.

All directives create more "union", and therefore without an exemption from the implementation of directives, we could not escape "ever closer union".

You are interpreting 'ever closer union' as a loss of sovereignty and the physical joining of nations in a superstate.

That is not the only interpretation. I would argue that being united is not a bad thing. Our country is (was) a United Kingdom. A more positive view of 'ever closer union' could easily be about alignment toward shared interests and common goals.

The UK has been very much on the periphery of the EU. Outside Schengen. Wilfully disengaged from the politics and mechanics of the EU itself. There is no reason at all why we could not have continued with that partial engagement.

<snip>

Because

On Greece's economic meltdown in 2011

Junkers said:

When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

On EU monetary policy

Junkers said:

I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates

On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty

Junkers said:

Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,

On French referendum over EU constitution

Junkers said:

If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,

On the introduction of the euro

Junkers said:

We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.

On eurozone economic policy and democracy

Junkers said:

We all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it

And I don't regard Junkers as anything other than typical Eurocrat......

[///ajd]

steveT350C said:

cookie118 said:

steveT350C said:

cookie118 said:

steveT350C said:

How many people voted remain because the BBC told them to?

How many people voted leave because the Sun/Mail/Express told them immigrants/the EU/the 'establishment' were the source of all their woes?

'source of their woes'?

You think people voted brexit because being out of the EU would solve their 'woes'????

Jesus wept.

'BBC told them'

You think that people voted to remain because 'the BBC told them'????

Jesus wept.

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

No, he's mocking your hypocrisy.

Quite a big difference.

[Elysium]

B'stard Child said:

Elysium said:

don4l said:

rscott said:

That's where you're making assumptions about Remainers again.

Just because some of us didn't want to leave the EU, didn't mean we wanted ever closer union. Some of us would have preferred to remain pretty much as we were.
There were degrees of remain just as there are degrees of Brexit..

That, unfortunately, was never an option.

This is the nub of the argument.

Most Remainers didn't believe that "ever closer union" was happening.

Cameron came back from his "renegotiation" and told us that we would be exempt from future "closer union".

Some of us could see that this was a blatent lie. Some of you could not.

All directives create more "union", and therefore without an exemption from the implementation of directives, we could not escape "ever closer union".

You are interpreting 'ever closer union' as a loss of sovereignty and the physical joining of nations in a superstate.

That is not the only interpretation. I would argue that being united is not a bad thing. Our country is (was) a United Kingdom. A more positive view of 'ever closer union' could easily be about alignment toward shared interests and common goals.

The UK has been very much on the periphery of the EU. Outside Schengen. Wilfully disengaged from the politics and mechanics of the EU itself. There is no reason at all why we could not have continued with that partial engagement.

<snip>

Because

On Greece's economic meltdown in 2011

Junkers said:

When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

On EU monetary policy

Junkers said:

I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates

On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty

Junkers said:

Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,

On French referendum over EU constitution

Junkers said:

If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,

On the introduction of the euro

Junkers said:

We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.

On eurozone economic policy and democracy

Junkers said:

We all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it

And I don't regard Junkers as anything other than typical Eurocrat......

What could the EU have possibly done to force deeper engagement from the UK. We have been teetering on the brink of Brexit for years and they knew it.

The 2013 house of commons briefing paper I linked to earlier has an interesting graph on page 10, which suggests that Leaving the EU was ahead of Remaining since 2010:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...

As we have discussed before, the fundamental flaw of the EU structure is that it encourages and rewards a pro-EU sentiment. Being anti-EU, as the UK has been for many years, reduces your influence.

As I see it, the political nonsense has been rumbling on the background for ages and we have ignored it, continuing to transact with the EU on a largely financial basis. Ultimately, that is also how we will end up after we leave.

For that reason I do maintain that we could have continued as we were. We have chosen not to and the objective now must surely be not to 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.

[B'stard Child]

Elysium said:

What could the EU have possibly done to force deeper engagement from the UK. We have been teetering on the brink of Brexit for years and they knew it.

The 2013 house of commons briefing paper I linked to earlier has an interesting graph on page 10, which suggests that Leaving the EU was ahead of Remaining since 2010:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...

As we have discussed before, the fundamental flaw of the EU structure is that it encourages and rewards a pro-EU sentiment. Being anti-EU, as the UK has been for many years, reduces your influence.

Or hold the EU back from it's goal - it's been an unhappy marriage for a while

Elysium said:

As I see it, the political nonsense has been rumbling on the background for ages and we have ignored it, continuing to transact with the EU on a largely financial basis. Ultimately, that is also how we will end up after we leave.

We've ignored a lot of things.

Elysium said:

For that reason I do maintain that we could have continued as we were. We have chosen not to and the objective now must surely be not to 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.

I agree - but are the EU willing to do the same??

[Fastdruid]

B'stard Child said:

<snip>

And I don't regard Junkers as anything other than typical Eurocrat......

The EU or at the very least the Eurozone part is doomed unless they *do* have closer union.

To be totally honest it's really damned if they do, damned if they don't because the rest of Europe is going to get sick of permanent austerity and dragging wages down to East European levels to support the German export industry and damned if they don't because the Germans aren't going to want to vote for paying for most of the rest of Europe.

[Elysium]

B'stard Child said:

Elysium said:

What could the EU have possibly done to force deeper engagement from the UK. We have been teetering on the brink of Brexit for years and they knew it.

The 2013 house of commons briefing paper I linked to earlier has an interesting graph on page 10, which suggests that Leaving the EU was ahead of Remaining since 2010:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...

As we have discussed before, the fundamental flaw of the EU structure is that it encourages and rewards a pro-EU sentiment. Being anti-EU, as the UK has been for many years, reduces your influence.

Or hold the EU back from it's goal - it's been an unhappy marriage for a while

Elysium said:

As I see it, the political nonsense has been rumbling on the background for ages and we have ignored it, continuing to transact with the EU on a largely financial basis. Ultimately, that is also how we will end up after we leave.

We've ignored a lot of things.

Elysium said:

For that reason I do maintain that we could have continued as we were. We have chosen not to and the objective now must surely be not to 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.

I agree - but are the EU willing to do the same??

The EU is not really the issue. The member states will decide on their future relationship with the UK first individually and then collectively. In the same way that MP's decide on issues individually, then collectively in parliament.

I do think that self interest will win through. The other member states will want to continue to transact with us because it benefits them.

[don'tbesilly]

Elysium said:

B'stard Child said:

Elysium said:

What could the EU have possibly done to force deeper engagement from the UK. We have been teetering on the brink of Brexit for years and they knew it.

The 2013 house of commons briefing paper I linked to earlier has an interesting graph on page 10, which suggests that Leaving the EU was ahead of Remaining since 2010:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...

As we have discussed before, the fundamental flaw of the EU structure is that it encourages and rewards a pro-EU sentiment. Being anti-EU, as the UK has been for many years, reduces your influence.

Or hold the EU back from it's goal - it's been an unhappy marriage for a while

Elysium said:

As I see it, the political nonsense has been rumbling on the background for ages and we have ignored it, continuing to transact with the EU on a largely financial basis. Ultimately, that is also how we will end up after we leave.

We've ignored a lot of things.

Elysium said:

For that reason I do maintain that we could have continued as we were. We have chosen not to and the objective now must surely be not to 'cut our nose off to spite our face'.

I agree - but are the EU willing to do the same??

The EU is not really the issue. The member states will decide on their future relationship with the UK first individually and then collectively. In the same way that MP's decide on issues individually, then collectively in parliament.

I do think that self interest will win through. The other member states will want to continue to transact with us because it benefits them.

I couldn't agree more, and the inevitably of such happening is something that the EU will refuse to acknowledge as it harms the EU.

[///ajd]

May: We'll win appeal!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37868987

Maybe not so much.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

[steveT350C]

///ajd said:

May: We'll win appeal!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37868987
Maybe not so much.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

Woo Hoo!!!

[B'stard Child]

steveT350C said:

///ajd said:

May: We'll win appeal!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37868987
Maybe not so much.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

Woo Hoo!!!

Absolutely - keeps the EU off our back and unable to interfere in the countries own constitutional matters

Buys a little more time to get the "ducks in a row" for the planned negotiations

Keeps the EU's negotiator sitting on his hands waiting for the trigger point

Ensure that our exit start is fully legal under UK law

Really can't see the issue at all.......

[///ajd]

B'stard Child said:

steveT350C said:

///ajd said:

May: We'll win appeal!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37868987
Maybe not so much.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

Woo Hoo!!!

Absolutely - keeps the EU off our back and unable to interfere in the countries own constitutional matters

Buys a little more time to get the "ducks in a row" for the planned negotiations

Keeps the EU's negotiator sitting on his hands waiting for the trigger point

Ensure that our exit start is fully legal under UK law

Really can't see the issue at all.......

The issue is for those hanging onto every publically spoken word from Theresa as the absolute gospel truth as to what will happen.

Immigration is the priority over trade. Let's see how that pans out.

[steveT350C]

///ajd said:

The issue is for those hanging onto every publically spoken word from Theresa as the absolute gospel truth as to what will happen.

Immigration is the priority over trade. Let's see how that pans out.

Do you hang on to every publicly spoken word by TM? Me neither. BBC viewers maybe?

[///ajd]

steveT350C said:

///ajd said:

The issue is for those hanging onto every publically spoken word from Theresa as the absolute gospel truth as to what will happen.

Immigration is the priority over trade. Let's see how that pans out.

Do you hang on to every publicly spoken word by TM? Me neither. BBC viewers maybe?

Some here have.

e.g. 535i and his "brexit means brexit" - a bone I still don't think he has managed to put down.

[Dindoit]

sidicks said:

Of course there will be some racists that voted for leave too, but that's an entirely different issue not under dispute.

"Some racists" voted Leave? Exactly how many racists do you you reckon voted Remain? Be honest. We both know the answer to that question.

To say all Leave voters are racist is a really dumb and, ironically, prejudiced bigoted nonsense. Just like attention seekers calling Remain voters traitors. However you can be absolutely certain every racist voter ticked Leave.

[steveT350C]

We have another one

[sidicks]

Dindoit said:

"Some racists" voted Leave? Exactly how many racists do you you reckon voted Remain? Be honest. We both know the answer to that question.

I certainly don't, perhaps you can enlighten us (and then explain how you know that)?

I do know that those who voted Remain appear to be in favour of prioritising predominantly white Europeans over predominantly non-white non-Europeans as far as immigration is concerned.

Make of that what you will...

Dindoit said:

To say all Leave voters are racist is a really dumb and, ironically, prejudiced bigoted nonsense. Just like attention seekers calling Remain voters traitors. However you can be absolutely certain every racist voter ticked Leave.

See above, you're wrong again.

[B'stard Child]

///ajd said:

steveT350C said:

///ajd said:

The issue is for those hanging onto every publically spoken word from Theresa as the absolute gospel truth as to what will happen.

Immigration is the priority over trade. Let's see how that pans out.

Do you hang on to every publicly spoken word by TM? Me neither. BBC viewers maybe?

Some here have.

e.g. 535i and his "brexit means brexit" - a bone I still don't think he has managed to put down.

What the fk does that really mean..........

DC fked up - He campaigned to "remain" and instructed his civil servants to not do anything related to a "leave" result - it wasn't going to happen.

It happened - He knew his threat to invoke art. 50 immediately in the event of a leave vote was crap - he had no idea and had done no planning on how that would even happen or even if he could it was another remain threat (or lie) so threw his toys in the corner and stomped off as his credibility was trashed

(reminds me of when G Brown emptied the piggy bank before he lost office)

This gave us a leadership election - buys a bit of time - it happened a bit too quickly

So TM and new team (inc civil service) had a standing start up a 1 in 5 slope.....

A legal challenge - just what we need to buy a bit more time

Now TM may not have a plan - she certainly didn't have a plan when she took office - no-one had a plan then so "brexit means brexit" was meaningless babble but in the absence of any plan at all was the best she could do to keep the wolves from the door.

Personally I think "controls on immigration" will be balanced against "trade" but it won't be "free movement" and it won't be "single market" because we are leaving.

Compromise will be found

EU will spin as UK worse off

UK will spin as it's a Leave and no more free movement but access to single market

Oh and the NHS won't get 350m a day sorry it won't

[alfie2244]

Dindoit said:

"Some racists" voted Leave? Exactly how many racists do you you reckon voted Remain? Be honest. We both know the answer to that question.

To say all Leave voters are racist is a really dumb and, ironically, prejudiced bigoted nonsense. Just like attention seekers calling Remain voters traitors. However you can be absolutely certain every racist voter ticked Leave.

Well as the EU policy is to discriminate against those from outside of the EU, i.e Africa, India, and the entire ROW except 27 countries I could suggest there could have been more racists voting for Remain........can you be absolutely certain that is not the case?