Richmond Park by-election.
Discussion
don'tbesilly said:
It's in no way relevant to the UK's vote to leave the EU.
It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.
You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.
Crack on
And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.
You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.
Crack on
Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?
Murph7355 said:
Mario149 said:
...
ETA: I'd also add to that (although I wouldn't necessarily agree with it) I would have been happy to see our gov try and negotiate some more opt outs/concessions from the EU to get Leave voters on board if it meant that over all we as a country would have been more "on side" with being in the EU.
...
And if the EU hadn't budged (or even, god forbid, insisted on stronger ties? Yes, yes, our own politicians have sold us down the river on that front in the past so you can't blame the EU etc etc. They know what the electorate think about that now though. Shame we didn't have more say earlier on).ETA: I'd also add to that (although I wouldn't necessarily agree with it) I would have been happy to see our gov try and negotiate some more opt outs/concessions from the EU to get Leave voters on board if it meant that over all we as a country would have been more "on side" with being in the EU.
...
Mario149 said:
It was also made abundently clear that we'd trigger A50 immediately. It was also made abundantly clear that we'd be swamped with Turks against our will if we stayed, etc etc. There was misinformation (deliberate or otherwise) on both sides and this is widely acknowledged. You can't suddenly claim that something said by your side was gospel or not because it's convenient.
Both sides the same thing. HTHAW111 said:
don'tbesilly said:
It's in no way relevant to the UK's vote to leave the EU.
It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.
You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.
Crack on
And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.
You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.
Crack on
Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?
Mario149 said:
They could have insisted all they want, we wouldn't have had to accept. One parish of a few thousand people from Belgium almost scuppered an EU-Canada trade deal so I don't think we'd have had a problem holding our own. And if our politicians had "sold us fown the river" as you put it, then you could have held them to account come election time, voted in UKIP and left the EU.
- The Belgian parish didn't scupper it though, did they? So we've had the Belgians (well, one parish ), the Irish, the French and the Dutch all come to their senses under no pressure or undue influence from the EU whatsoever...
- In simple terms I think we did...Blairite Labour gone 6yrs ago, albeit in coalition with the appropriately coloured LibDems. Conservative majority last year, in good part because they promised a referendum as UKIP were encroaching heavily. Referendum held. Vote to Leave secured. Job done. People fed up with the direction the EU has been and will be taking vote the people out who took us there
Mario149 said:
It was also made abundently clear that we'd trigger A50 immediately. It was also made abundantly clear that we'd be swamped with Turks against our will if we stayed, etc etc. There was misinformation (deliberate or otherwise) on both sides and this is widely acknowledged. You can't suddenly claim that something said by your side was gospel or not because it's convenient.
Many people are sore that Art50 wasn't triggered immediately. tbh I always felt that was silly and would never have advocated that approach...but the person who was stating it resigned so never got to carry through on his assertions (time in coalition with Nick Clegg maybe rubbed off on him. Maybe he was always thus).I think your Turks comment is stretching the point a bit thin. I don't recall anyone saying this would happen immediately. Time will tell if Turkey are the next state in. Will they get chance to join? Will they still want to? The EU now has bigger problems to handle until the Turks stop holding back the immigration tide.
I agree about misinformation. However, there were the odd one or two items that were being stated by BOTH sides. I'd say that in the mire of bulls
t during the campaigning it was always safe to assume that if both sides agreed, it was probably likely. Even if one couldn't work it out for oneself 
Mario149 said:
It was also made abundently clear that we'd trigger A50 immediately. It was also made abundantly clear that we'd be swamped with Turks against our will if we stayed, etc etc. There was misinformation (deliberate or otherwise) on both sides and this is widely acknowledged. You can't suddenly claim that something said by your side was gospel or not because it's convenient.
Really! Someone once lied to you so you can ignore every detail you dislike. Meanwhile in the real world...don'tbesilly said:
It's in no way relevant to the UK's vote to leave the EU.
It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.
You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.
Crack on
You don't have to answer, though refusing to do so is a bit childish imo, everybody knows that neither Norway or Switzerland are members of the EU.It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.
You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.
Crack on
don'tbesilly said:
...the UK voted to leave the EU, and everything, everything that tied us to the EU.
You know that that isn't true, the vote was a simple Leave/Remain, anything subsequent to the vote is at the discretion of the Government. Had the ballot paper qualified the leave option by adding 'and everything, everything that tied us to the EU' then what was a close vote might well have gone the other way, but as you say, that's an irrelevance because the ballot paper included no such statement. We could leave and adopt a similiar relationship with the EU as either of those other non-members mentioned above, we'd have left either way and the people's instruction would be fulfilled.RYH64E said:
don'tbesilly said:
It's in no way relevant to the UK's vote to leave the EU.
It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.
You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.
Crack on
You don't have to answer, though refusing to do so is a bit childish imo, everybody knows that neither Norway or Switzerland are members of the EU.It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.
You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.
Crack on
don'tbesilly said:
...the UK voted to leave the EU, and everything, everything that tied us to the EU.
You know that that isn't true, the vote was a simple Leave/Remain, anything subsequent to the vote is at the discretion of the Government. Had the ballot paper qualified the leave option by adding 'and everything, everything that tied us to the EU' then what was a close vote might well have gone the other way, but as you say, that's an irrelevance because the ballot paper included no such statement. We could leave and adopt a similiar relationship with the EU as either of those other non-members mentioned above, we'd have left either way and the people's instruction would be fulfilled.I still hold the view that your question was/is an irrelevance as the vote had nothing to do with Norway or Switzerland.
The Supreme Court hearing currently taking place has nothing to do with Norway or Switzerland, I haven't heard either country mentioned by the Attorney general or Lord Eadie to date.
As to your other point, what I've stated and you've quoted is the truth, denying such is up to you, it doesn't alter a FACT.
The UK could leave and adopt the same/similar arrangements that Norway & Switzerland have with the EU, but....we haven't left yet.
sidicks said:
Mario149 said:
It was also made abundently clear that we'd trigger A50 immediately. It was also made abundantly clear that we'd be swamped with Turks against our will if we stayed, etc etc. There was misinformation (deliberate or otherwise) on both sides and this is widely acknowledged. You can't suddenly claim that something said by your side was gospel or not because it's convenient.
Both sides the same thing. HTHRYH64E said:
don'tbesilly said:
...the UK voted to leave the EU, and everything, everything that tied us to the EU.
You know that that isn't true, the vote was a simple Leave/Remain, anything subsequent to the vote is at the discretion of the Government. Had the ballot paper qualified the leave option by adding 'and everything, everything that tied us to the EU' then what was a close vote might well have gone the other way, but as you say, that's an irrelevance because the ballot paper included no such statement. We could leave and adopt a similiar relationship with the EU as either of those other non-members mentioned above, we'd have left either way and the people's instruction would be fulfilled.The vote was to Leave. Simple.
Anything we can do to strengthen our position during the ensuing processes (which were clear) then so be it. But Leave we must.
Norway and Switzerland are totally different scenarios as mentioned.
I would have preferred the vote to have been 55:45 (either way to be honest...I'm a Leave voter, but anything lower than that was always going to lead to incessant whining from the losing side). However in a binary vote I'm not sure a 4% gap was "close" per se. It was 1.7m people different, and I've heard more voted for it than anything else prior (a claim I've yet to check up admittedly).
Murph7355 said:
Mario149 said:
They could have insisted all they want, we wouldn't have had to accept. One parish of a few thousand people from Belgium almost scuppered an EU-Canada trade deal so I don't think we'd have had a problem holding our own. And if our politicians had "sold us fown the river" as you put it, then you could have held them to account come election time, voted in UKIP and left the EU.
- The Belgian parish didn't scupper it though, did they? So we've had the Belgians (well, one parish ), the Irish, the French and the Dutch all come to their senses under no pressure or undue influence from the EU whatsoever...
- In simple terms I think we did...Blairite Labour gone 6yrs ago, albeit in coalition with the appropriately coloured LibDems. Conservative majority last year, in good part because they promised a referendum as UKIP were encroaching heavily. Referendum held. Vote to Leave secured. Job done. People fed up with the direction the EU has been and will be taking vote the people out who took us there
Mario149 said:
It was also made abundently clear that we'd trigger A50 immediately. It was also made abundantly clear that we'd be swamped with Turks against our will if we stayed, etc etc. There was misinformation (deliberate or otherwise) on both sides and this is widely acknowledged. You can't suddenly claim that something said by your side was gospel or not because it's convenient.
Many people are sore that Art50 wasn't triggered immediately. tbh I always felt that was silly and would never have advocated that approach...but the person who was stating it resigned so never got to carry through on his assertions (time in coalition with Nick Clegg maybe rubbed off on him. Maybe he was always thus).I think your Turks comment is stretching the point a bit thin. I don't recall anyone saying this would happen immediately. Time will tell if Turkey are the next state in. Will they get chance to join? Will they still want to? The EU now has bigger problems to handle until the Turks stop holding back the immigration tide.
I agree about misinformation. However, there were the odd one or two items that were being stated by BOTH sides. I'd say that in the mire of bulls
t during the campaigning it was always safe to assume that if both sides agreed, it was probably likely. Even if one couldn't work it out for oneself Murph7355 said:
You've quite succinctly agreed with him in your "the vote was a simple Leave/Remain".
The vote was to Leave. Simple.
Leave, no more and no less. Where I disagree with him is on the 'and everything, everything that tied us to the EU' statement, we could leave and still have quite substantial ties to the EU, as is the case with both Norway and Switzerland.The vote was to Leave. Simple.
Mario149 said:
See my reply to Sidicks above. Both campaigns will have said what they thought would appeal to the sections of voters they wanted to appeal to. The fact they were saying the same thing at points means nothing. Saying the same thing to 2 people may result in different results.
2 people, on opposing sides of the coin, saying the same thing is a different premise.It's no guarantee of anything of course. But far more likely to be on the money.
Murph7355 said:
...and I've heard more voted for it than anything else prior (a claim I've yet to check up admittedly).
Looks to be true...We've only had 3 UK wide referenda since 1970 (not sure how many before...I think possibly bugger all). Winning vote numbers:
- UK to stay in the Common Market in 1975 - 17,378,581 (had I been old enough, and had it purely been about the Common Market I'd have voted yes I suspect)
- Voting system in 2011 - 13,013,123
- Leave the EU in 2016 - 17,410,742
Mario149 said:
And they can't both have been telling porkies? Leavers to encourage the anti-EU voters to make a "clean break" and Remainers to discourage say wavering voters who didn't want to risk the uncertainty of leaving the SM? HTH as you say.
The recent argument by camp remain was that it wasn't said at all, not whether one side or both sides said it. Your argument that people say things just to win is a little disingenuous. The recent brouhaha is whether people knew they were voting for an end to the single market as allegedly that was never made clear; despite the numerous and varied examples presented by all parties on both sides that it clearly was.FWIW, I totally agree things are said that are not meant by all. The worrying thing for me now is that some very high profile figures like Clegg are walking around contradicting themselves in the same sentence. The case for leaving the SM was clearly made, until people accept that the debate will continue to stagnate.
RYH64E said:
Murph7355 said:
You've quite succinctly agreed with him in your "the vote was a simple Leave/Remain".
The vote was to Leave. Simple.
Leave, no more and no less. Where I disagree with him is on the 'and everything, everything that tied us to the EU' statement, we could leave and still have quite substantial ties to the EU, as is the case with both Norway and Switzerland.The vote was to Leave. Simple.
Are you going to continue arguing what was asked on the ballot paper?
We (the electorate) all had exactly the same paper/choice.
The UK could do what you suggest, BUT after/or as part of the negotiations with the EU during the 2 year period following the invoking of A50.
Norway has to comply with FM, 33% of Leave voters didn't want to comply with FM, May has made it clear the UK won't accept FM in it's present form.
That point (FM) could form part of the negotiations.
As a reminder:
don'tbesilly said:
The UK could do that, but that's not what the ballot paper spelt out, it was remain in the EU or leave the EU.
Are you going to continue arguing what was asked on the ballot paper?
We (the electorate) all had exactly the same paper/choice.
The UK could do what you suggest, BUT after/or as part of the negotiations with the EU during the 2 year period following the invoking of A50.
Norway has to comply with FM, 33% of Leave voters didn't want to comply with FM, May has made it clear the UK won't accept FM in it's present form.
That point (FM) could form part of the negotiations.
As a reminder:
33 of 52% is far short of a majority.Are you going to continue arguing what was asked on the ballot paper?
We (the electorate) all had exactly the same paper/choice.
The UK could do what you suggest, BUT after/or as part of the negotiations with the EU during the 2 year period following the invoking of A50.
Norway has to comply with FM, 33% of Leave voters didn't want to comply with FM, May has made it clear the UK won't accept FM in it's present form.
That point (FM) could form part of the negotiations.
As a reminder:
Norway isn't a member of the EU, and if we had exactly the same arrangements as them then we wouldn't be members either, we would have left the EU. It's entirely possible to Leave the EU (as required by the terms of the referendum) and retain membership of the single market and the various free movements.
I'm not suggesting that would happen prior to any negotiations taking place, just that the terms of the referendum don't preclude the possibility, subject of course to negotiation.
don'tbesilly said:
AW111 said:
And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.
Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?
How would it prove it wrong?Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?
don'tbesilly said:
<snip>
The UK's membership of the EU is the same as being a member of the single market, the two are intrinsically linked, you can't have one without the other.
Now maybe you think the UK can't be in the single market and not in the EU, but since Norway and Switzerland are, your assertion in bold is incorrect.The UK's membership of the EU is the same as being a member of the single market, the two are intrinsically linked, you can't have one without the other.
The UK may not wish to make the compromises the EU would demand in exchange, but that's a different question.
AW111 said:
don'tbesilly said:
AW111 said:
And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.
Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?
How would it prove it wrong?Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?
don'tbesilly said:
<snip>
The UK's membership of the EU is the same as being a member of the single market, the two are intrinsically linked, you can't have one without the other.
Now maybe you think the UK can't be in the single market and not in the EU, but since Norway and Switzerland are, your assertion in bold is incorrect.The UK's membership of the EU is the same as being a member of the single market, the two are intrinsically linked, you can't have one without the other.
The UK may not wish to make the compromises the EU would demand in exchange, but that's a different question.
s2art said:
Neither Norway or Switzerland are members of the single market.
Norway is a signatory to the EEA, which makes it part of the single market.http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement
efta website said:
The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market".The EEA Agreement also states that when a country becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA.
Switzerland is not a signatory to the EEA, but is part of the "internal market" via bilateral agreements.Edited to fix link.
Edited by AW111 on Monday 5th December 21:40
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff