UKC

I listen to the James O'Brien show a lot these days not specifically in the hope that I'll learn something, or have my mind changed on a particular issue, but simply because I find his ranting and the putting down of ill-informed callers rather cathartic in these particular times.

However, I heard this very well reasoned argument from Martin in Kensington against the suggestion that we should all somehow get behind Brexit. It's an idea that I've felt uneasy about myself, but couldn't properly express or reason, but I haven't heard any particular rejection of that idea from politicians or the press. I thought his words deserved a bit more coverage:

"What really scares me is the notion of, 'let's get behind the Leave campaign because they won'. Where is the moral obligation? If we had a referendum on capital punishment and it gained the popular vote, would I just rally behind the winning camp? No, I'd fight and resist it and continue to defy it because I believe it's morally wrong... I don't accept that because it's popular, it's enshrined in moral strength. If we accept that because it's popular or it wins a vote, that it's got a moral dimension, that is a very slippery slope. Surely I have to make no historical reference to make that resonate with people."

(Slightly abridged for readability, the discussion can be heard from 42:40 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR3UMgUfWgc)

In that vein - I'm not a Brexiteer now or ever. Although I respect people's private opinions and reasons for voting, I do not recognise the legitimacy of the result or of the referendum itself.

Thanks for reading

In reply to Trevers:
The part between 59:01 to 1:04:34 says it all. Very clever.

The situation we find ourselves in, seems to be bonkers to me. We have found ourselves with something only a minority wanted. As Mr O'Brien says, we have what people who are willing to take a hit so that there are less foreigners around want. I have talked to many leavers, this is the dominant subject, but unbelieveably, it's not the Poles or the Hungarians or the Bulgarians they have a problem with, most say "it's those effing Muslim innit".

What short memories we have. No one seems to remember, Farage, Johnson, Gove et al, saying we should have a Norway or Switzerland deal, where's that now?

Project Fear? or Project Reality?

Look everyone, the Emperor has no clothes on! Is it cold Theresa? How does the shame feel? To have to stand naked in your shame because the little Englanders in your party have forced you to do so, for fear of losing their seats to UKIP.

Well, I'm up for protest, anyone else? Having said that, I was on a protest march with 2 million people in February 2003 and result of that was? Absolutely nothing, completely ignored! I'm afraid we're all stuck with this utter farce.

In reply to Trevers:


Why not? What was illegitimate about it?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Because 52% of the electorate didn't vote for hard-Brexit.

In reply to Hugh J:


You're right, they voted for Brexit, with no "flavour" specified. Though note that the possibility and implications of hard-Brexit were repeatedly highlighted by the Remainers.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Too bloody right they were. But the Leave side said it was going to be a soft-Brexit and the talk of a hard-Brexit was just Project Fear.

Liars.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

...and many Brexiters said "it'll never happen, we can stay in the single market".

In reply to andyfallsoff:


They indeed did. And the voters would have weighed up the competing claims as they always do in elections and referendums.

But, that's beside the point, why would any democrat regard the result as illegitimate?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


So, do you think it's OK to lie to the electorate? Seems to be the way things are these days. Brexit, Trump, what's next?

It now appears that the Remain campaign were telling the truth and the less said about the "Basket of Deplorables" from the other side the better. They lied.

In reply to Hugh J:


No, but in every election and referendum these days there are lots of lies from both sides. If you're going to say that any lie disqualifies the election's legitimacy then no election will ever be legitimate.

Just for example, I watched a party-political broadcast by Labour yesterday and there were lots of lies in it (and I'm sure that broadcasts by the Tories and LibDems would also be untruthful).


You mean this is only just news to you? You mean you hadn't spotted that they were lying at the time, like everyone else did? Come on!

(1) There were huge lies on both sides and always are, and (2) the electorate know it and don't necessarily believe them.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Because actually a lot less than 50% (30%, 20%?) would have voted for Hard Brexit if there had been three choices in the referendum, and less still if the information broadcast during the campaign had been properly policed for accuracy.

On top of which, since this was essentially an irreversible, life-changing strategic shift, more than 50% should have been required to change the status quo. It wasn't an election where even if we had done something catastrophic like ending up with Jeremy Corbyn we could have changed it after 5 years. This is far worse; our children's lives have been changed for the worse predominantly by an older generation who won't be around to have to deal with the ramifications.

Now we have a two-year window in which to decide whether we'd prefer to live and work elsewhere in the EU before that option is closed to us. So, no, I'm not about to start putting a brave face on it and pretending I think any part of it is a sensible idea.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

In reality, the campaign arguments had precious little to do with the end result. Minds were made up over years or in fact decades, the referendum was simply the first (and almost certainly only), chance to express them. Pouring over the other sides campaign minutiae may act as some sort of personal therapy for the losing side, but is about as useful as studying the entrails of slaughtered chicken to provide any sort of insight into why people voted, in unprecedented numbers, as they did.


What a naive question!

Because Guardian readers did not get 2 or even 5 votes to only 1 given to the Sun-reading plebs, proles, racists, bigots, little Englanders, xenophobes (in fact those vulgar working class types shouldn't be have been allowed to vote in the referendum at all. Or ever in fact). Because it gave the wrong result, because the stupid electorate voted the wrong way. Because we didn't listen to our betters and dutifully do as we were told. Because there was actually a choice in the first place. Because "democracy" really means " a way of forcing the result that the bien pensant want and to hell with any dissenters or heretics".

In fact, for the same reason that this opinion was described as "insightful", which is a synonym for "one I agree with".

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Maybe some of us think (perhaps naively) that democracy should be better than people simply expressing the nearest opinion to hand. For one, I'd like to think it was the expression of *informed* opinion. Had the debate last summer contained more in the way of discussion of the pros and cons of various possible future scenarios it would be easier to see the result as legitimate. Instead we had to witness two groups of career politicians shouting at each other in their attempts to get people to vote their way.

And that's without even starting on the legitimacy of an unelected PM's unilateral decision to remove the UK entirely from Europe.

How on Earth could a "democrat" see legitimacy in the process?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Do we need to get 2/3rds agreement that there should have been a 2/3rds threshold, or is only 50% agreement needed for that?


Do you really think so? Surely anyone with skills and qualifications can usually go and work in another country if they really want to. It might be a bit harder than now, but it wouldn't be "closed".

Just look at how many non-EU there are in the Premier League, for example.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


So, given that Brexiters are highly likely to have been split between hard and soft flavours, what could be wrong with offering a chance - once the details of any likely deal were clearer - for the electorate to decide whether that was indeed what they were voting for? If you're right and they'd all considered it thoroughly already, they'll all vote the same way again and the matter will be resolved conclusively.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Now who's being elitist?! Anyway, not all professions are like science, Coel. There's no guarantee that the EU will continue to recognise UK professional qualifications. Especially if we screw up the Unitary Patent Treaty they have spent a decade setting up, as it seems we may be about to do.

In reply to john arran:


I'd be fine with another referendum once the deal has been struck. (And with the Scots having a second referendum on the Union, and/or EU membership, if that's what they want.)

At the next election the people are able to vote in a government that will give them a second referendum.

(Of course there are slight complications, such as whether the EU would be willing to accept a "let's just forget the whole thing" U-turn, and whether they can legally do that once A50 is triggered.)

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Ah yes, the next election.

Labour in disarray.
Lib-Dems seen as a bunch of no-hope amateurs.
UKIP completely unpalatable to most of the population.

It's the perfect storm for the Tories to do as they please, because they know they're gonna get elected regardless.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I think it was the lawyer Jean Claude Piris that suggested that there was/is a procedure to backtrack after A50 was triggered. He might know, he apparently helped to draft it.

No doubt we will hear more of this option no matter what deal us done

In reply to Jim C:


Would you be at all interested in that Jim?

In reply to Trevers:


Our government was elected with a promise to hold a referendum on EU membership.
It held that referendum.

The side I campaigned for lost.

I am not happy about that but I can see nothing illegitimate about it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Brilliant! You should be funny more often.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015....

page 74: "we say: yes to the Single Market"

page 75: "We will protect our economy from any further integration
of the Eurozone. The integration of the Eurozone has
raised acute questions for non-Eurozone countries like the
United Kingdom. We benefit from the Single Market and
do not want to stand in the way of the Eurozone resolving
its difficulties. Indeed, given the trade between Britain and
the Eurozone countries we want to see these economies
returning to growth. But we will not let the integration of
the Eurozone jeopardise the integrity of the Single Market
or in any way disadvantage the UK."

page 75, again: "We want to expand
the Single Market, breaking down the remaining barriers
to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened
up to British firms."

given that not just staying in, but extending the single market was a manifesto commitment, then it would be reasonable to expect that some people voted Leave on the understanding that the government intended to keep single market access in any brexit settlement. if only just over 1% of those that voted leave did so rather than vote remain then the result would have been a remain vote.

this is not a clear mandate to do whatever Theresa May likes; it is a thin mandate, and to press on, dismissing those who want to keep something that was in a manifesto she campaigned on less than 2 years ago as 'losers' who have to get behind her 'red white and blue' brexit is going to cause lasting damage.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Hadn't been following, but from the other thread - do you mean access or membership? What level of access we have is dependent on decisions our government can't make, they're made by the EU. Our government wants as much access as possible given the result of the referendum. Are they even breaching their commitment?

Our previous government, the one that promised the referendum, said a big YES to the EU as well. They lost on that point, and that has implications, like no more membership.

In reply to rogerwebb:


The referendum question was illegitimate because the government did not publish an official manifesto stating what they would do if there was a vote to Leave (like the Scottish Government in the independence referendum or the UK government in the first EU referendum). If government didn't want to write a Leave manifesto they shouldn't have held the referendum. Without an official manifesto Leave was able to make contradictory promises designed to appeal to different groups and could not be held to account.

There needs to be a second vote on the actual Brexit plan and if it is rejected then the alternative should be staying in the EU not crashing out with no negotiated agreement.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Well, the said 'yes' to the SM; and didn't offer a referendum on this, it being on the same page that they offered the eu ref I think this is significant; and leaving the eu doesn't mean automatically leaving the SM. We've not had a chance to vote on anu manifesto for this government, so I think they either honour the one that got their predecessor elected, as it's that mandate they are relying on; or they publish a new one and seek a mandate for it.

So yes, I think it is a broken manifesto commitment; and yes, I do think it's likely that enough people will have voted leave on the basis that they thought SM access would be prioritised to swing the result.

I don't think another referendum would be worthwhile now; but May should be doingmmore to acknowledge that her mandate is very thin and she needs to take those she's let down with her.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


They can only stick to their manifesto as much as possible, and there is a difference between access and membership, does the manifesto talk about membership? Too lazy to look it up I'm afraid!


What would you like her to do (and not leave the EU isn't an answer )?

Bedtime - have a good night!

In reply to thomasadixon:
Swiss model, or similar. Outside eu, but with SM access.


Immigration- deal with the 50% of non eu migrants that are entirely within the governments power to manage already first. That's 150000 per year they could have been controlling and have chosen not to. Since they have control over that abd don't use it, getting control over another group of immigrants seems a rather small gain with a high price tag.

And yes- getting late, enough for one night!

In reply to The thread:

How refusing to accept the legitimacy of the referendum or it's result can be described as "insightful" is beyond me.

And to those who think this is not what leave voters wanted, or that it would now go the other way if re-run, yougov disagrees:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/public-back-brexit-plan-think-eu-will-...

...if polls are worth anything anymore....

In reply to Just Another Dave:


Well . . . . exactly!

I think if there was 3 options on the referendum, along the lines of 1) Remain, 2) Leave but retain access to the single market, 3) Leave, it would have been a landslide for the middle option. I might have even voted for that, but for me leave was not an option precisely because of the scenario we now seem to be facing.

In reply to Trevers:

Yes, I totally agree.

There is no need to accept a result.

There is a need to go about protesting and arguing peacefully.

But democracy is continuous. Many many fights have been won, lost won and eventually right wins. Slavery, womens right to vote.. these weren't straight forward wins.

Look at Obamacare. It will get replaced, it will get repealed. But basically, as a principle it will win out because the idea that people shouldn't die because of a lack of wealth or that pre-existing conditions from birth should disqualify you have now been shown to be wrong. Even the republicans eventually admitted this. Obama changed the discussion. He has caused a paradigm shift in US healthcare thinking whether his actually policy remains or not.

I think the same with Europe. An integrated Europe is the future and there's no need to back a full Brexit. The referendum was never about that. It was just in or out. There's many tapes of Leave campaigners saying the UK could stay in the single market. There is absolutely no mandate for a hard brexit as it stands and that should be fought against.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Come on you are a scientist.

They also repeatedly argued that Britain would retain SM access. There was no idea what Brexit meant and they changed constantly. FFS you even had people voting because they wanted to stop Iraqi's coming in (the guy from Barnsley on TV) because of emotive adverts that Farage's lot ran..

But they also said the NHS would get 350 million a week...

If you lie like that you have to accept the result will not be accepted.

In reply to Trevers:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/19/europes-ideological-civil-wa...


http://www.euractiv.com/section/euro-finance/news/gloves-off-between-rutte-...

In reply to Trevers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY&t=1s

The single market mash-up from the link in the OP. Please share.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I don't understand how an 'official' manifesto, or a lack of one has any effect on a yes/no question's legitimacy. Your example of the Scottish referendum rather highlights that, the white paper was a wishlist based on dodgy economics that had much in common with 'leave' rhetoric and 'Yes' in general presented wildly contradictory positions, from Brian Souter to Patrick Harvie to Common Weal, they couldn't all have happened anymore than the outcome of 'leave' can encompass Nigel Farage and Gisela Stuart.

Both referenda had quite simple unavoidable effects.
UK citizens would no longer be EU citizens,
UK citizens (and no others) living in or born in Scotland would have had their nationality changed.

Everything else was speculation.

And I agree, given that speculation a vote on the terms or a general election would be desirable, but I am not sure that our ex partners will let us rejoin on the previous terms...

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Yes indeed. And the Remainers were repeatedly pointing that out! That uncertainty, and the consequent "Project Fear" dominated much of the campaigning.


So no election will ever be valid, since there will always be lies by both sides?

Or, would it be better to say that both sides have the opportunity to point out the flaws in the other sides' rhetoric during the campaign.

Which they indeed did! Do you really think that the "£350 million for the NHS" was just accepted simplistically and credulously by the media? Well, no it wasn't, it was widely slammed and critiqued during the campaign.

In reply to Trevers:

I think the idea that we should all now get behind "Brexit" is just like the games master/mistress pushing the unwilling into an action we are against. At its most extreme it is exemplified by the public mood that sent my 2 great uncles and millions of others to their deaths in 1914-18.

The harm that is to befall us is yet to come. Why should we put our heads under the Brexit Yoke (yes, this idea of yoking defeated prisoners goes back to classical times and is as civilised as that) when it is going to hurt, harm and destroy life aspirations? As The Harm approaches we should be kicking against the Prick even more.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I don't think the referendum was illegitimate as such, although it was appallingly conceived. However, those arguing that it was "democratic" and therefore there is a mandate to take whatever route the government wants with implementation do not have a legitimate case. Democracy isn't mob rule, or shouldn't be. It should account for myriad opinions, have proper checks and balances, and take input from many quarters. This is especially so when views are spilt down the middle, as here.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Framing it as a yes/no question when it clearly was a three-way question (i.e. stay in, move to EEA or leave completely) is a manipulation. Leave should have been forced to fix its position with regard to the single market in a manifesto.

If Leave had fought the referendum based on the 12 points in May's speech they would have lost by miles because both the EEA and the EU camps would have voted against.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Stay in, was deliverable by the UK Government, leave completely is deliverable by the UK Government. All other positions, including membership of EEA (which requires membership of the EU or EFTA) are dependant upon negotiation with others.

It would have been an odd referendum indeed if it had included an option that could not be realised by the organisers acting alone.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Many keep stating this as fact, that what people wanted was the soft middle way.

I'm sceptical.
Your powers of knowing the electorate's feelings surpasses all other analysts and commentators, and so folk go on stating with undiminished confidence how and why the masses would vote...

In reply to Just Another Dave:





What Tom stated would only have required about 1% of Leave voters to prefer Remain to Hard Brexit, and to have voted accordingly had it been clear to them what Brexit would end up meaning. It says nothing about huge numbers of people wanting a middle way.

In reply to john arran:

Fair do's. He did say that, but above, also referred to a three-way choice. As many others do, here and in the media. Anyhow, I suspect people may have surprised us again.

In reply to MG:


The whole problem here is that there is no middle-ground option because the EU have said they won't allow it. I'm sure there would be a majority for a middle-ground option, if it were on the table, and I'm sure that the government would be happy to pursue that.

But, the EU have made it clear that they'll only allow membership of the single market, etc, on terms so bad that they'd be worse than staying in. They have made that fully explicit! It is that that is driving things towards Hard Brexit.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

As you must know that is bullshit. You are saying anything but *exactly* what the UK wants is "so bad" that it can't be accepted, which exactly the point I making above - there is no mandate for this extreme position. The EU have desires just as much as we do. Claiming that because of that it is all the fault of the EU (we are the ones leaving!!) is ridiculous. There are many half way house options - Norway and Switzerland being the obvious ones that already exist.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well let us hope that both the UK and EU are adopting negotiating positions and that the final result looks like the Swiss or Norwegian case.

(even better if there was a snap general election sweeping a remain government to power, sadly neither the election or my preferred result seems likely)

In reply to Coel Hellier:


It was legitimate as an advisory referendum. But the weight this should carry is only this: advice. Our country is a parliamentary democracy and this was an advisory referendum. Once our parliament votes on Article 50 - fine, that is legitimate. But MP should vote for what is best, not necessarily what majority wants. Democracy is not the same and was never intended to be the same as mob rule. Read Burke, Hume, Washington, Adams - they all were very concerned that democracy should not be mob rule. This is why there are representatives, high courts and all the checks and balances. Edmund Burke on representative democracy:

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

In reply to dsiska:

Quite right but our elected representatives have used their judgment to follow the advice of the referendum. I question that judgment but it is theirs to make.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Not sure how many times I've repeated myself here, but I'll say it again.

Because it was a "non-binding" referendum.
Non-binding. Non-binding. Non-binding.

There is no obligation to invoke article 50 based on this referendum. Certainly not a hard-brexit one.

But given that 52% voted in the non-binding referendum, this sounds like good opportunity to not simply say "sorry, we're staying", but to realise that a substantial number want out. To then decide what flavour that "out" should be. Then put that to a referendum. Let the people decide what version they want.

Instead we choose the least democratic, most extreme course of action. These are kinds of circumstances under which the term "tyranny of the majority" was coined.

All that aside, do you really believe that if the vote had gone the other way, Theresa may would have, or even been justified in, saying now we go for "hard-entry" and join the Euro?

Go ahead and Brexit., we're going. But I won't support it any more than I'd support pulling my own fingernails out.

In reply to rogerwebb:



I think that following the Lancaster House statement and following pushing the Article 50 button in March, there very much will be a snap election in April predicated around Brexit, Immigration etc. Given that a Conservative landslide looks likely, then hard Brexit and the PM gain an undeniable mandate.
Rather than giving the working class a kicking for being reactionaries in the face of neglect, I'm going to look to the Labour Party and it's leadership to explain themselves for cutting what should be their core constituency adrift in favour of marginal metropolitan sixth-form politics.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Even Turkey has access to the customs union, so presumably we could at least aim for that.

The Turkish model; makes you proud, doesn't it?

In reply to David Martin:


The trouble is that the UK cannot decide the flavour of Brexit, it needs to be negotiated with the EU, and that can only happen after A50 is triggered. If it were a simple matter of the UK people deciding what the deal would be, that would be different.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Though nobody actually wants that. The Remainers consider those models to be worse than full membership, and the Brexiters also consider those models to be worse than full membership!

So that would give us an outcome that absolutely no-one wants!

The Remainers only like the Swiss/Norwegian model in preference to Hard Brexit, it's not that they actually like it!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But we could decide what we are negotiating for. At the moment, May has abandoned the aim of remaining in the single market (despite the fact that would have respected the vote, in the case of an EEA / EFTA arrangement) without even having begun negotiations - because she (that's ONE person, acting independently) has interpreted the result as a vote on immigration (despite the fact that wasn't on the ballot) and if you set that as your priority, losing membership of the SM logically follows.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I think that following the Lancaster House statement and following pushing the Article 50 button in March, there very much will be a snap election in April predicated around Brexit, Immigration etc. Given that a Conservative landslide looks likely, then hard Brexit and the PM gain an undeniable mandate.

Fixed term parliaments were introduced in 2015, so a snap election can't be called in April.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



But which both sides might dislike less than either side would dislike one of the alternatives. It's called compromise.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
!



Most would much prefer it to current lunacy! You're not getting this compromise thing are you?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


no that's the scary thing, many did not know it and believed it at the time they voted. Heard several conversations just on the way to place my vote from couples discussing it where they were spouting out blatant lies or propaganda. Have heard from lots since that realised they were lied to but believed it at the time. And it's not saying the electorate are dumb, it's simple psychology. If you hear something said enough it can twist your opinions, and if you're not the type to dig below the surface too much it can really subvert you're understanding. During the campaigns the person we heard most from in the media was Farage (not anyone on either campaign bizarrely) and so many consciously (there's plenty of those too) or subconsciously believe what was said.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The middle ground is the "Norway model", which at the time Farage et al were constantly bleating on about. It was only after the result was in that he started saying "Brexit means Brexit".

In reply to wercat:

I think the idea that we should all now get behind "Brexit" is just like the games master/mistress pushing the unwilling into an action we are against.

I think it's more like if the company you work for gets taken over by another one.
You might not like it, but you do your best as an employee to make it work.

In reply to MG:


How do you know that "most" would prefer the Norway model to Hard Brexit? Most Brexiters would regard it as the worst option of all, it is only palatable to Remainers.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


For the reason that the EU have made clear that their asking price for that is too much. I'm sure that if the EU offered participation in the single market, without all the other EU stuff, then May would be happy to discuss that.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


How do you know that!?

In reply to Hugh J:


So Farage et al were constantly "bleating" about accepting a model including full EU rules on the free movement of people?

Really?? That's not my recollection, but feel free to quote Farage about accepting EU free-movement after Brexit.

In reply to MG:


Well, what advantages does the Norway model offer a Brexiter over full membership?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


For you, perhaps. However, the country is split almost exactly 50:50. Taking the narrowest of votes as carte blanche to take adopt your extreme position isn't democratic - its' authoritarian. It quite frightening how large parts of the world has gone in two or three elections from liberal democratic to proto-fascist, with possibly more to come, and more so that otherwise sane people are buying into and defending it.

In reply to David Martin:

The problem is that if the government had said it's not a big enough majority therefore we're not leaving, there would have been riots on the streets. Farage would have whipped up the right into a frenzy and though I might get flamed for this, there are many elements of the right that range from the outright thuggish to the stiff upper lip "over the top" for God and country brigade. That is one of the reasons why Cameron said it was a simple in/out referendum and a 50:50 choice, though I'm still not convinced as to what his actual goal was. Though you are completely correct, the fact that it was non-binding is I'm afraid, irrelevant.



No. In the words of Shatner, "Sometimes irony can be pretty ironic".

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well the obvious ones are access on equal terms to the single market, and freedom to travel and work in other countries without endless redtape for a much reduced cost than full EU membership

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Here's the evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY&t=1s

In reply to Coel Hellier:




Correct but I would very much prefer it to hard brexit

In reply to MG:


The UK always has had a "winner takes all" attitude to electing governments.

Further, none of the 52% who voted Brexit wanted to accept a deal involving full EU free-movement rules. Anyone who was happy to accept full EU free-movement rules would have voted Remain.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

And this is the con that has been perpetrated since the referendum. Suddenly it is about the outcome pleasing the majority of Brexiters rather than the majority of voters.

A few percent of Brexiters who want EEA plus almost all the Remainers is a majority for EEA: if there was a vote today to choose between Hard Brexit and the EEA the EEA would win.

If it was clear EEA was not on the table in the original referendum staying in the EU would have won. Similarly, if the original vote had asked about all three options staying in the EU would have won.

The only way Hard Brexit could win with only about 30% of people in favour is with a biased two stage system.

In reply to MG:


No, Norway does not get those things at "a much reduced cost".

E.g. https://infacts.org/norwegians-pay-same-brits-eu-access/

Try again: what advantages does the Norway model offer a Brexiter over full membership?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

This wasn't an election. And we have never had the that attitude anyway. There are endless checks in the system - select committees, the House of Lords, the judiciary etc.


DO you have any idea how absurd that sounds? There will be a large group who would be quite happy with free movement but object to any of the other aspects of the EU such as the laws, or court or whatever. You really do need to try and see the world with a little more subtly - isn't black and white.

In reply to FactorXXX:



But what if that company has now had a change of values and direction and you believe it's business plan will leave society worse off, if not yourself and your loved ones?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


How do you know that?

I'd suggest that there really is a mood among many in the UK for Brexit -- real Brexit that is, not EU-membership-lite.

In the referendum the chief Remain argument was "Project Fear", scaring people about the dire consequences of Brexit. Well, whether for good or ill, people have now got used to the concept and it would be a lot harder to scare people about the consequences a second time.

Recall that Project Fear predicted that we'd already be in deep recession, just as a consequence of the vote, and yet economic indicators are fine and healthy.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I find the figures suspect but regardless, if you believe them, just remove the cost point. The other benefits are there, as is the exclusion for EU law, the other bugbear of brexiteers.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You've just made that up on the spot.

I know, because I spoke to quite a few people who said they wanted out of the EU but didn't want to restrict migration at all.

My sample size is small, but this seemed to be popular in the farming community and with some business owners.

In reply to MG:


Nope, I don't.


"We noted in our Brexit study that if the UK were to ‘become like Norway’ by joining EEA, 93 out of the 100 costliest EU-derived regulations would remain in place at a cost of £31.4bn per year (94.3% of the total cost). This is because many EU policy areas would continue to apply to the UK including financial services, social and employments laws, energy and climate change policies, and this is where the bulk of the regulatory cost stems from."

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/what-would-a-norway-style-relationship-...


Norway is subject to the ECJ!


Yes, please specify.

In reply to skog:


It is remarkable how Coel (or all posters) in common with many other brexiteers lose all touch with facts when discussing the subject. He has just made a string of assertions and plain errors as if saying something makes it true.

In reply to Coel Hellier:




Opting out of the CAP and the CFP.

As far as I can tell, a lot of fishermen voted leave to get away from the CFP, but are pretty keen to continue to be able to sell fish to continental buyers easily and to hire cheap Eastern European crew.

You're also ignoring the possibility that some Brexiters were mislead over single market access and didn't realize that we'd have to sacrifice it if we didn't want freedom of movement because "the Germans want to sell us cars" or whatever.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That link gives completely different figures for the cost of Norway's membership, showing a significant benefit over the UK's full membership costs, so make your mind up. It also gives a comprehensive list of the benefits of EEA membership.

And if you really cant see how claiming that none (not one?) of the x million who voted leave would be happy with freedom of movement looks absurd, I can't help.

In reply to skog:


Same here, of our 3 Brexiteers at work 2 want immigration control one doesn't *. Tiny sample but I hear other people saying similar things and it seems to be reflected in the media, there was sizeable minority in favour of a Norway/Switzerland type deal. Shrewd politics from May though, wouldn't be surprised if the Tories take Stoke Central.

*I'm in the Liberal Elite but I do talk to proles and Little Englanders sometimes.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I've also spoken to people who voted out, but wanted an EEA arrangement. Wasn't there someone on these forums who said that as well (maybe Summo? Apologies if I have misrepresented him if it isn't, just going on memory).

Cork's argument also goes against the polling data and the many people on the Leave side who have said that immigration wasn't the main concern.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The maths are pretty straightforward: 48% wanted to Remain, 52% wanted to leave and a fair number of the Leavers thought/wanted Leave to mean moving to the EEA. We could argue whether the 'fair number' was 20% or 40% but there is no doubt it was a hell of a lot more than would be necessary to close a 48% to 52% gap.

There's been plenty of polls since the referendum and I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that there's a majority of the whole electorate for hard rather than soft Brexit. Some of them say there's now a majority for Remain.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-majority-uk-remai...

In reply to MG:

If only niggle was still here to argue that bold assertions of faith were meaningless, and that trying to find and examine the real-world evidence was the right way to do things.

In reply to Trevers:

But what if that company has now had a change of values and direction and you believe it's business plan will leave society worse off, if not yourself and your loved ones?

Firstly, I voted Remain and am therefore as disappointed with the result of the referendum as many other people.
Companies will do what they think is best for themselves and their share holders. Do you really think that they should take a altruistic approach instead?
It's the same with the Government and Brexit. They have to make decisions that they think will benefit the Country as a whole upon the UK leaving the EU and not just make decisions that effect a particular segment of people that currently live in the UK. Unfortunately for some, that might mean that they have to return to their native countries or that future immigration will be controlled, etc. I'm fairly sure that won't mean carte blanche deportation and that a pragmatic approach will be found to deal with families, etc.

In reply to FactorXXX:

The world would be a much better place if everyone did this.

And yes, the government should be altruistic, that's what they are voted in for.

In reply to FactorXXX:



The FTPA can be repealed as easily as:
“It could be literally a one clause bill saying ‘notwithstanding the Fixed Term Parliament’s Act 2011 the next election shall be held on x date’,” The FTPA would remain in place, but be bypassed.
Or (bizarrely)
The Conservative govt could pass a vote of no confidence in themselves to trigger an election , or a 2/3 vote with the support of other parties to call an election.
All easily justified in support of achieving a clear mandate.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what transpires.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

A two-thirds majority to change the constitution! Who'd have thunk it?

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


You're going to 'look to them to explain themselves'? All very headmasterly - but what then? Will you punish them by not voting in their favour? No, that can't be right: that will have happened already.

What do you hope that your 'looking to them to explain themselves' will achieve?

In reply to FactorXXX:


I wish I could believe that the government was acting in the best interest of the country, but I genuinely can't.

In reply to Hugh J:

The world would be a much better place if everyone did this.

Not many Companies would survive if they replaced profit with altruism.


And yes, the government should be altruistic, that's what they are voted in for.

Governments should indeed be altruistic with regards to general societal needs, etc.
However, when it comes to the economy, they pretty much have to treat it like a business. If they think the best way to achieve that is by a hard brexit and all that entails, then so be it. I certainly wouldn't expect the Government to make decisions of that nature based on whether or not it's nice to the present/future transient immigrant work force from the EU. As I said in a previous post, I really don't think they'll be expecting settled families, etc. to return to their native country and that instead they'll start to control immigration in the future.

In reply to Trevers:

I wish I could believe that the government was acting in the best interest of the country, but I genuinely can't.

Who do you think they are doing it for then?
You might not agree with the Conservatives and their entire political philosophy, but they are the elected Government and there's no reason to believe that they don't do things which they personally believe will benefit the Country.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Whilst I don't think the government should necessarily treat the economy the way that business wants them to, but instead for the good of the people who voted them in, they certainly aren't doing either now, nor are they treating it as a business now. The best thing to do for business and the economy in the grips of a decade long recession is not to base these decisions on political ideology. What is happening is not what most businesses asked them to do.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Oh yes there is. They know Labour are in disarray and with no other effective opposition this is the ideal time to push their ideologies on the nation. Bye-bye EU, bye-bye NHS, bye-bye workers rights.

In reply to FactorXXX:



The only way you could have that much wool over your eyes is if it was growing out of your skin!

Have you never heard of a conflict of interest? Did you not know that almost all politicians have private business interests (or just straight up receive bribes) that intersect with their decisions as elected representatives?
Here's some information on the matter from an anti-lobbying group: http://www.lobbyingtransparency.org/open-up-lobbying-1#the-problem

Here's some particularly blatant examples:
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/10/01/questions-over-mps-conflic...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/matthew-hancock-conflict-of-i...

In reply to Hugh J:
Do you seriously believe that the Tories wish to get rid off the NHS?
There's probably no quicker way to commit political suicide.

In reply to baron:


They are already doing it via a creep method. Once it has totally gone tits up they will introduce something along the lines of Obamacare. But you can be certain that for the best standards of healthcare, you will have to pay for it.

May has already indicated this will be a low-tax, business orientated nation, so who is going to pay for the NHS?

In reply to baron:


I strongly suspect some do, they've written books on it. The health secretary for example.


Unless what you're doing is 'saving a national treasure from collapse' at the public's behest. How: Details, experts, private capital... look over there a scrounger and an immigrant! Give it a week and they'll be back to talking about bakeoff, football and the latest celebrity nip-slip to show up on their Mail sidebar of shame.
jk

In reply to various:

To clarify.
Are you trying to say that the Government is going to impose a hard brexit and in the full knowledge that it will damage the Country?
Further, that they are doing so, to feather their own nests and those of their cronies?

In reply to FactorXXX:




For party unity.

In reply to Hugh J and Jk.

The Tories need to keep their voters onside if they want to remain in power.
They'll not do that if they try to dismantle the NHS.
Just because some Tories might want to replace the NHS for ideological reasons or personal gain doesn't mean that tory voters will support them.
There have been many opportunities in the past when the Tories were in a much stronger position yet the NHS remains.

In reply to FactorXXX:




Yes

In reply to dsiska:

>
The leaders of every party stated in parliament that they would accept the outcome of the referendum as binding. Is it your view that lying is OK if you agree with the outcome of the lie (ignoring the referendum result) but not if you disagree (brexit campaigners making misleading assertions)?

In reply to baron:



There is no effective opposition and will not be for a long while.

Labour are destroying themselves.
Liberals have been kicked into the long grass after a valiant attempt to keep the Tories in check.
UKIP are irrelevant now that Farage and the EU are no longer in the frame.

They know that it is now Labour who will lose votes to UKIP and their core vote that went for UKIP will return now that hard-Brexit is on the table.

In reply to Hugh J:

Yes

and Trump and Corbyn are Russian sleepers...

In reply to FactorXXX:


No

In reply to baron:



It's pretty easy to see how it can be done by stealth - or rather pretty blatantly to most but 'technically' defensible on paper. I'm just waiting for a bill that allows people to reallocate much or all of their portion of health contribution to a private scheme, on the basis that they won't be using the NHS any more so shouldn't be required to pay for it. It will happen with education too. The result will be that health and schooling will be lower quality and more expensive for the vast majority of people, including most people on here and (incredibly) most Tory voters. But it will be fine - because it will be "fairer". And people will continue to vote for them, just like US citizens have voted to end Obamacare.

In reply to john arran: obviously I can't speak for all Tory voters but I personally wouldn't vote for any party that acted towards the NHS or education in the manner that you suggested.
Why would anyone vote to privatise something that they directly benefit from?

In reply to baron:


That sounds a very weak reason to think it won't happen. Lots of other things that people directly benefit from have been privatised - trains, gas, electricity, water etc

In reply to baron:


Sounds illogical, doesn't it? But that's exactly what just happened with Obamacare and I have no doubt it will be attempted in the UK too during the course of this government. There'll be a few sweeteners rolled into the same bill to confound the issue, and without a viable opposition they'll be counting on most of their voters to stay loyal anyway, despite being shafted. Those already paying for private healthcare and private education will save a few grand each year; everyone else will lose.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Don't forget Farage

It would be surprising if Russia had not helped UKIP and the Brexiter's using the same tricks as they used for Trump. It is clearly their strategy to try and influence elections as a means to destabilise NATO and the EU so they can reassert influence in previous client states and retaliate against politicians who impose economic sanctions.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The actual act of parliament does not say it is binding.

The SNP doesn't seem to think it is binding on Scotland - and good for them.

In reply to baron:
it might be done by big business allowed into the UK under new Trump-UK deals yet undreamed of. Remember how HMRC tax records and UK police fingerprint records ended up in US companies hands in the 90s?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ibm-ordered-to-return-fingerprint-disk...

interesting piece here - I was struggling to remember the contractor in question (EDS) but someone here managed to digit up

http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/new-post-outsourcing-big-brothe...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I know, which would be why I didn't suggest that it did. So I pose you the same question.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

There's campaigning, there's spin but outright lies?

I cant think of many other examples of such blatant fabrication.

When you say 'winner takes all' for the term of that parliament it does. They do not dictate policy for the next 30-40 years. That's a much bigger change.

Maybe its just new politics but look at the GOP, 8 years of 'we will repeal obamacare'.. 8 years of saying they have a better plan?

No what. They come in power today and have absolutely no idea what they want.

It's been the same with leave, we can do better.. we can be greater.. we have a plan.. then suddenly.. erm.. yeah.. erm..

There were plenty more lies, plenty more examples of stirring up hatred.

The 'Turkey will join' was another absolute lie. Its laughable now because they obviously have no idea what they actually want.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't know that the SNP which is the party I voted for ever said they'd accept the result of the Brexit referendum.

As an individual I certainly don't see any need to.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

nor I, south of the border

In reply to wercat:
If you're worried about big business and the NHS and education I'd suggest that PFI has already done the damage.

In reply to baron:

that was after the outsourcings I'm talking of, but I agree

In reply to wercat: sorry, only read part of your link.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Well no, that's unfair. Turkey has headed strongly away from EU membership since the coup, but it seemed to be on the path towards membership before that.

In 2010 Cameron told Turkey: "I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership and for greater influence at the top-table of European diplomacy.". As recently as 2014 he said: "In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that."

Thus, the possibility that EU leaders might admit Turkey to the EU, say ten years hence, and then just tell everyone that they had to accept any resulting migration from the 75 million population of Turkey, was a real one.

After all, what track record do EU governments have of consulting the people on such issues?

In reply to john arran:


Except that there have been lots and lots of Tory governments that have never done that.

I think it's fair to judge governments and political parties by what they say and do, not by what their opponents say they might do.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

what do you mean by 'don't accept'?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



The difference of course being that the Tories are now further to the right than ever before in my lifetime and currently unrestrained by any meaningful opposition. Having been unable to push through their intentions in the past is certainly no indication they won't feel like they can get away with it now.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Don't know how much you've followed events, but its been clear for a couple of years, at least, that Turkey wasn't going to join the EU any time soon. The negociations were going nowhere & its clear some EU countries were likely to veto any possible proposal of membership

In reply to john arran:


I'm not convinced. Theresa May has generally been regarded as on the moderate wing of the Tories.


Which implies that they previously had intentions to abolish the NHS, etc. Which, as I see it, is merely something their opponents say about them.

In reply to Doug:


Perhaps, but that didn't rule out Turkey joining in -- say -- 10- or 15-years time (had it not been for Erdogan, anyhow).

And note that the UK government's track record of consulting the people over EU issues is about once every 40 years. The Turkey issue also stood for a more general point, namely the EU and the UK agreeing to the accession of poorer countries, with consequent mass-movement of people, without feeling any need to consult the people.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


What have you seen then? Is it not obvious to you that the NHS is in extremely bad shape? The quality is going down, staffing morale hasn't been this low for decades, debt is perhaps at an all-time high. If that's not death by a thousand cuts, then I'm a bamboo plant.

In reply to SenzuBean:


There haven't been any cuts. The spend on the NHS has always gone up under Tory governments. The problem is that the amount the NHS needs to "stay the same" rises by about 8% a year, owing to more elderly people and the fact that we're living longer and needing more health care, and the availability of more and more expensive treatments and drugs, and the fact that people are getting more demanding. So, you can blame the Tories for not increasing the NHS as much as you would like, but it is inaccurate to say they are cutting it or that they want to abolish it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


You said it yourself - letting it drift further and further behind is a cut in all but name. They know this very well.

In reply to Doug:


About the biggest cheerleader was boris until he flipped for the out campaign. Although I think he has done a reverse ferret and started cheering on again. Unsurprisingly that didnt get applause from EU officials.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
No, at the time they had no chance. For them to join they must have huge reforms. It's years off if at all.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


This has already been linked to, don't know if you read it but it would appear that YouGov are seriously claiming just that.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/public-back-brexit-plan-think-eu-will-...

"People will judge Brexit on the overall package, on whether it feels like a good deal for Britain or not. By that measure, Theresa May's announcement was a success - by 55% to 19% people think the Brexit she described would be good for Britain, 62% think it would respect the referendum result and by 53% to 26% people say that they would be happy with the outcome."

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


In a similar vein, if it looks like parliament won't vote for a bill to trigger article 50 they could simply make it a vote of confidence along the lines of "it is vital that such a constitutional change commands the support of the people's representatives" or however else they may care to justify it. In essence Labour MPs will then have to support the bill or face likely electoral suicide.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Maybe. But my point is that it is not fair to accuse of the Brexiters of an "absolute lie" in suggesting that Turkey might join, given that as recently as 2014 the UK PM had stated that Turkey joining was long-standing government policy.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The irony in that, is that the bulk of the European countries are dead against Turkey joining the EU unless a lot changes, and those changes they estimate would realistically take at least decades, if ever. Most of these countries don't even consider the posibility on the table.

The UK though was/is the biggest supporter of Turkey joining, but now the UK is leaving the EU citing the posibility of Turkey joining the EU as one of the reasons?

Is like me campaigning heavily for the death penalty to be reinstated and then using my own lobbying and campaigning as evidence that the death penalty might be reinstated even if i am the only person in the country campaigning for it, and then leaving the country because i don't want to live in a country so backwards and medieval that have the death penalty...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Two parts of your position on which I doubt your sincerity:

1. "the voters would have weighed up the competing claims as they always do in elections and referendums..."

No they wouldn't. The idea that people voted rationally according to the evidence is ridiculous, it simply doesn't reflect how human beings work. There are countless well-documented psychological phenomena that are exploited by politicians (and advertisers, etc) that make human decision making at this population level irrational. In the case of Brexit, the first two such phenomena that spring to mind are believing only what you want to believe, and the 'backfire effect' where evidence contrary to your beliefs hardens rather than softens them.

The Brexit campaign was an embarrassing cacophony of misinformation and speculation and the result had absolutely nothing to do with rational analysis. You can say, if you like, that there were equal quantities and intensities of lies on both sides (that's not true of course) but I simply don't believe you when you present your view of the referendum as a worthwhile democratic exercise. It posed an ill-defined question to ill-informed people for ill-conceived reasons: this is undeniable.

The result was not illegitimate, but the referendum was ridiculous.

2. " the EU have made clear that their asking price for that is too much. I'm sure that if the EU offered participation in the single market, without all the other EU stuff, then May would be happy to discuss that"

Why even imply that there was any possibility of the UK getting a good deal from Europe involving the benefits of the single market without accepting free movement - or any other arrangement that gives the UK a better deal from Europe by leaving? This suggestion was made over and over again in the campaign and was as absurd then as it is now. What does the EU care more about, its survival, or favourable trading terms with the UK? I don't believe that you think the EU should or could act differently.

It's frustrating to debate against anything other than sincerely held beliefs.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm sure in some political science dept. somewhere people are doing research on this right now, but I suspect that there were a significant number of voters, and I'd put myself in this group, who had reasonably deep seated reasons to vote remain or leave long before the referendum was even called. I suspect those reasons were a mix of rational and emotional (my family and the majority of my adult life quite possibly wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the EU; but at the same time I also spent very many years studying and understanding the minutiae of EU foreign and security policy development and its impact on member states and the international 'system'). Amongst leavers I'm sure lots had long developed thoughts on either the positive economic results that might result for certain industries etc. from leaving, or strong ideas on why more limited political communities (nation-state rather than supra-national community) are better. Of course there are emotional aspects that too, patriotism for example. The leave campaign made no impact on me at all, and I suspect the remain campaign made no impact at all on long-term brexit supporters (like Coel it would seem).

Then there must have been a significant numbers of people who had really never thought that much about it but did exactly what we need people to do in a democracy and got stuck in - deciding what they thought and ultimately going to the polls and voting. It would be interesting to know how many people made their minds up during the campaign and how many people already 'knew' before the referendum was even called. Then we would have a better idea of what was actually significant in the campaigns' promises/lies.

In reply to Simon4:


Nice caricaturing.

Aren't we needing to make our country less divided? A fat lot of good, posts like this will do.

I'm a Remainer who's developed an increasing respect for the idea of bringing back sovereignty over the months since Leave won, as it happens, I see it as a valid point of view.

In reply to TobyA:


I suspect that the number of people in possession of enough reliable, balanced information on the subject to make a decision that could be considered useful to steering policy on this issue was rather less than the 1% or so needed to swing the result from what we got.

I do not believe that there was a detectable signal amidst the noise.

In reply to Timmd:


Yes, and that means Parliamentary sovereignty. No other system works – or, at least has been devised, that works as well.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yep, my point is more that just quite a few of us had our minds made up either way long before we even knew we would have to make out minds up! It would be interesting to know how many of us fell into that demographic and how many of us only decided during the campaign.

In reply to TobyA:

i've seen a chart on this and from memory it was about 2/3 already decided and 1/3 undecided until the last week. i can't remember where i saw it though. will have a look.

In reply to TobyA:

like you I was (am?) in the remain camp partly due to personal reasons, having worked on some EU funded research projects back in the early 90s & more recently for an EU agency. Possibly makes me biased but it also means I have a better understanding of how the EU works than most Brits (& so am aware of many problems with the EU although not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater).

But pre referendum, maybe just after it was annouced, I'm sure I saw an opinion poll showing approx 1/3 confirmed 'remain', 1/3 confirmed 'leave' & 1/3 not sure/don't know/yet to decide

In reply to Mr Lopez:


The UK *government* under *Cameron* was a big supporter of Turkey joining, and Cameron was a *Remainer* who campaigned to *stay* in the EU.

It is those *opposed* to Cameron and Cameron's policy of supporting Turkey's accession who cited Turkey joining as one reason for Brexit.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


And the counter-argument was made over and over again in the campaign!

And no, I'm not suggesting that all voters are rationale, and never have suggested that, but lies, exaggerations and untruths are aspects of any elections or referendums these days, and the thing to do is for opponents to expose them during the campaign, which they did, not cry "illegitimate" afterwards.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But it was not going to happen, certainly not without massive reforms. Plus the vetos. Plus Erdogan in power.

They played on fears of muslim immigrants..

Likewise the long queues of assylum seeker posters..

And you say Remain played the fear card?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


It's still not fair to accuse the Brexiters of an "absolute lie".

1) The UK government, under Cameron, had long-standing stated policy of wanting Turkey's accession, and had said so as recently as 2014.

2) The UK government, under both Labour and the Tories, have a very poor record of consulting the people over EU treaties and accession and whatever.

3) Pointing to the possibility of Turkey's accession without further consultation of the British people was therefore not a "lie".


Both sides did.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Brexit hasn't started yet, so it (to a certain degree) remains to be seen how much Remain played the 'fear card' or whether the truth was being said. I think.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The poster and general propaganda says:

TURKEY
(Population 76 million)
IS JOINING THE EU
Vote leave

Can you prove that statement?

If you can't, then it is a lie. Simple as that.

https://infacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/3002-1024x614.jpg

In reply to Mr Lopez:

The poster does seem simplistic and less than fully truthful, but the EU at the time was holding accession talks with Turkey with the aim of admitting it (and had also promised it visa-free travel into Schengen).

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes it does doesn't it? Because it was a lie, a bit like the breaking point one.

I cannot believe that you think the vote was based on analysis of clear and rational presentation of facts by a well informed electorate.

I remember (it was only 6 months ago) that the recurrent statement by people beforehand was 'we don't have enough information'; no they didn't, the void was filled with bullshit from both sides - Cameron remember was always pretty eurosceptic.

In reply to Timmd:

It's unfortunate that we'll never know what our future would have been if we hadn't voted leave. Therefore we have no baseline to compare to our actual future.

Perhaps we should set up some metric to compare our progress with comparable states over the next few years.

In reply to pasbury:


I don't think that.
I have never said that I think that.
Indeed, I have said the exact opposite on multiple occasions on this thread.
As one example: "There were huge lies on both sides and always are".

In reply to Coel Hellier:

British support for Turkish accession has historically been for exactly the same reasons as the Britain was one of the strongest supporters of the EFTA accession (95) and the Visegrad group accession (04 was it?) - because it was seen as a way of further diluting the integrationist Franco-German core. I think though since the AKP came to power in Turkey the support has been more than a little half hearted.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Then what value does it have, and was it a correct and proper way to address the question of our membership of the EU?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That we ahgree


Did you read the link i posted above? Turkey applied to join the EU 30 years ago. Formal negotiations and proccess started 20 years ago. In this 20 years, Turkey managed to comply with 1 out 35 chapters. 1 out of 35. In 20 years...

> (and had also promised it visa-free travel into Schengen).

That has no relevance with joining the EU... And that would be to Schengen, which the UK is no part of anyway. But if the posibility of Turkish tourists being able to travel to Europe without the need of getting a Visa scares you, then tighten up your breeches because all this people can currently travel to the UK Visa free. I haven't done the maths, but i bet they are more than 75 million

Andorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Canada
Chile
Costa Rica
Dominica
East Timor
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Honduras
Hong Kong
Israel
Japan
Kiribati
Kuwait
Macau
Malaysia
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Micronesia
Namibia
Nauru
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Oman
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Qatar
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Seychelles
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Taiwan
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
United States of America
Uruguay
Vanuatu
Vatican City

In reply to pasbury:


What? The referendum?


Every single aspect that people are complaining about (campaigns distorting the truth and telling lies; half truths, smears and fear-mongering; an ill-informed electorate that is not properly equipped to assess the issues' people voting for all sorts of reasons, some of them bad) are features of all elections and referendums these days, and are pretty much inevitable in a democracy.

So, if you're a democrat, you don't have much option but to accept a lot of those things. If by "correct and proper" you mean democratic, then yes it was a correct and proper way to decide our membership of the EU.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Re visa-free travel. Very few of your list of nations border onto countries being torn apart by Islamist terrorist groups. No I don't want visa-free travel all the way from the Syrian border to Paris.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

And how does leaving the EU change any of that? Other than the fact the UK now cannot influence or veto any proposal for visa free travel for Turkish citizens to the Schengen area

In reply to Coel Hellier:

"why would any democrat regard the result as illegitimate?"

Because the binary 52%/48% vote was predicated entirely on a campaign of lies, disinformation and scare tactics, with no detail about projected outcomes, and with the significant 48% having absolutely no influence whatsoever on the result of what was essentially a glorified opinion poll.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Absolutely not - democracy as I understand it is not based on referendums. It is based on representative democracy - referendums should be used with extreme caution.
The example of capital punishment surely need not be rehashed here.
The electorate were not qualified to make this decision before and were not sufficiently empowered by the campaign on either side to make a sensible decision.
Referendums are not the normal model for our democracy, how many have we had in the last 100 years?
I am a democrat but in the sense that I vote for an MP to represent me in a legislative house where they have the expertise to make hard decisions for me ( yes I know that's hopelessly idealistic but it's the best model for me and could only be improved by a better voting system rather than a slew of referenda).

I detest the way that the democracy card is played here - the electorate were asked a question. They were not told how that decision would be enacted.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Umm, you do know that all the 9/11 terrorists were in the US on visas..?

In reply to pasbury:


In the original Ancient Greek version, it was based on the people congregating in the city square and voting directly on most issues. Yes, you can have representative democracy, but direct plebiscites are still democracy (and arguably a purer form of it).


And nor are MPs!! Really, MPs' main competence is in getting elected. Nothing about that automatically grants them competence in the issues over the EU.


So "have the expertise to make hard decisions" is code for "would vote on the EU the way I want them to vote". Go on, admit it. You're only lauding their expertise because you think a vote in Westminster would lead to the UK staying in the EU.


Yes, we had spotted that! The Remain campaign consisted of howling from the rooftops X, Y and Z, very loudly and multiple times. Then, afterwards, they want to claim that the result was illegitimate because the electorate didn't realise X, Y and Z!

In reply to Climb Hamster:


Umm, the 9/11 terrorists were on visas, therefore there is no possible harm in allowing visa-free travel from the Syrian border. Is that really your argument?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
And let's not forget why this all happened; Cameron wanted to appease and silence the 'bastards' in his party who did for Thatcher and Major. It was a colossal gamble.
It became a balls-up.
A cock-up.
A colossal, costly, unplanned for, f*ck-up.

And the 'bastards' are now running the show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/22/john-major-european-union-conser...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

No, I'm simply pointing out that your statement, "No, I don't want visa free travel all the way from the Syrian border to Paris.." suggests that a requirement to hold a visa might, somehow, prevent terrorist atrocities. in this case, it wouldn't.

In reply to Climb Hamster:


Umm, a visa requirement would not have prevented one particular terrorist act, therefore visa requirements can never do anything to reduce terrorism. Is that really your argument?

In reply to pasbury:


Sure, but the splits in the Tory party -- and just as much in the Labour party to be honest -- were a result of half the people in the UK not wanting to be in the EU.


Except that May was a Remainer so was not a bastard. And two of the three bastards-in-chief (Gove and Farage) are not running the show.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I am happy not to be living under such a system


Government consists of more than mere MPs, they are my direct representative in the House of Commons. Committees and government departments full of civil servants etc do the nitty gritty stuff.


Maybe, most MPs were remainers, I believe that was a good thing in that it reflected our best interests.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Source?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


It was a totally outrageous f*cking lie. Nearly as outrageous as Boris backing Turkey to join the EU a few weeks after the referendum:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/boris-johnson-says-britain-will-...

The honest response would have been a flat "Britain will veto Turkey joining the EU".

It is also interesting that of the handful of states Britain has talked to about trade deals two, India and Australia, have said they are going to want concessions on immigration.

In reply to pasbury:



Don't forget that an act of parliament was passed in order to enable this referendum.

That is, the MPs you're talking about collectively debated the matter; agreed to put the question to a referendum; agreed that that referendum should be decided by a simple majority; etc.

In reply to pasbury:




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

In reply to TobyA:


It is slightly ironic that some of the main arguments for the out campaign came about from things the British government were the biggest fans of.


Boris is still in full cheerleader mode. After temporarily switching off for the referendum.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


They also passed it as an advisory only referendum.

In reply to KevinD:


Correct: the act didn't specify any specific consequences.

In the same vein, the Parliament can now vote *against* any consequences proposed by the Government as a result of the vote.

I was merely pointing out a logical problem with pasbury's arguments on this.

In reply to KevinD:


Which is why the government is free to act on the advice in whatever way it sees fit.

In reply to KevinD:


But the British government campaigned for remain so its not ironic at all.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I wasn't having an argument. Merely making an observation.

In reply to pec:


Not when plenty of members of that government campaigned for out. Including Turkeys biggest cheerleader Boris.

In reply to KevinD:

Don't confuse the Tory party or even parliament with the government. The official government position was that we remain in the EU.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160815143715/https://www.eurefe...

Quote "The Government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK. "

Members of the cabinet were given special dispensation to campaign for leave and did so in their capacity as individuals not members of the government and so that doesn't alter the government's official stance.
In any case only 6 out of 30 cabinet ministers were leavers, hence 80% were for remain.