What did people vote for in 2016's EU membership referendum?

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Climate change is a fact. Even if it weren't, we should hasten our advance toward a green-based economy, given the omnipresent advantages that it brings re: the environment, health, jobs etc.

Personally, I believe that climate change is irreversible, but I'm still in favour of green politics regardless (see above).

In terms of the "bleeding heart" or "racist", they are extremes. My view is that immigration is a net positive to a country; an absolute necessity for a modern, global economy. All we ask is that we control borders, and not leave them open; in the same way we monitor who comes into our home, without saying that nobody should enter at all.

So, there are reasonable voices here. Unfortunately on this forum, you will find extremists who are unwavering in their political commitments - many of whom have shown no capacity to be at least willing to alter the way they consider these arguments.

I've had many people DM me saying that they agree with my views, but are unwilling to put their heads above the parapet here given what you will be subjected to. That's how bad things have gotten.

Well i genuinely state that no one should be unwilling or hesitant to voice their views. This is a debate not a fight

What i will say to you specifically Eskimohunt - is that you have frequently stated that Boris Johnson's deal, or more specifically a HARD BREXIT is what people voted for in 2016.

And i have REPEATEDLY posted asking you to address these obvious instances where that is proven to be a false assertion

liamtech wrote: »

For EskimoHunt

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55fd82d8ebad646cec000001/attachments/original/1463496002/Why_Vote_Leave.pdf?1463496002

Page 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

Throughout this video

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/

throughout this fact check

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/29/what-vote-leave-leaders-really-said-about-no-deal-brexit

throughout

There are plenty more Eskimohunt but please do read the above, and watch the video

SO i ask you again - please provide clear detailed evidence that the Vote Leave campaign was all about this hard Brexit

NOTE - i am posting this in the appropriate thread as the Mod has rightly suggested we not replay the 2016 Ref - again - and again

BY the way i don't believe that our debate/disagreement has ever become significantly personalized - so again i would love to hear from people who agree with your position -

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

And i have REPEATEDLY posted asking you to address these obvious instances where that is proven to be a false assertion

BY the way i don't believe that our debate/disagreement has ever become significantly personalized - so again i would love to hear from people who agree with your position -

During the campaign, all lead figures on both Leave and Remain sides stated that a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave the SM and CU.

From Johnson to Farage to Gove, they are all consistent.

No question about it.

The video you refer to quotes Hannan a year before the referendum - and he is/was not a major player during that referendum campaign.

The above 3 political figures I quoted were - and ALL leading Remain campaigners agreed and said a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave the SM and CU.

These are the facts. You just need to accept them.

Furthermore, here is Nigel Farage talking about the Norway option in its full context and how it's perfect for what Norway has independently chosen to do, but it's not something that Farage wants for the UK (first 1min 45 seconds)

From 2 min 34 seconds, Nigel Farage declares that he does not want the UK to be a member of the single market.

This is what happens when the Remain side is exposed to facts they did not know existed. Inside their own bubble of propaganda, they've rechurned these canards about the single market without having done an iota of research beyond a silly YouTube collection of misquotes.

Here is Michael Gove talking about the need to "leave the Single Market".

Here is a video of Remainers stating the same as Leavers:

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Furthermore, here is Nigel Farage talking about the Norway option in its full context and how it's perfect for what Norway has independently chosen to do, but it's not something that Farage wants for the UK (first 1min 45 seconds)

From 2 min 34 seconds, Nigel Farage declares that he does not want the UK to be a member of the single market

This is what happens when the Remain side is exposed to facts they did not know existed. Inside their own bubble of propaganda, they've rechurned these canards about the single market without having done an iota of research beyond a silly YouTube collection of misquotes.

You didn't listen to that. Otherwise you would have realised that Farage literally lied literally five seconds later. He told a blatant lie in the same sentence as he spoke about the SM. Pathetic.

Here is Michael Gove talking about the need to "leave the Single Market".

Here's a quote from that article:

"On trading, he said the UK would be part of the European free trade zone with access to the European single market but "free from EU regulation which costs us billions of pounds a year".

A blatant lie. Pathetic.

Here is a video of Remainers stating the same as Leavers:

That is so badly edited even a six year old would realise that sentences are being taken out of context. The editing of the Cameron piece is particularly laughable. Only a fool wouldn't spot it. Pathetic.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

During the campaign, all lead figures on both Leave and Remain sides stated that a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave the SM and CU.

From Johnson to Farage to Gove, they are all consistent.

No question about it.

The video you refer to quotes Hannan a year before the referendum - and he is/was not a major player during that referendum campaign.

The above 3 political figures I quoted were - and ALL leading Remain campaigners agreed and said a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave the SM and CU.

These are the facts. You just need to accept them.

Danial Hannan

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/29/daniel-hannan-the-man-who-brought-you-brexit

Founding Member of Vote leave

---

Boris Johnson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Mhokzv-jw

---

Also Eskimohunt - what about the VOTE LEAVE PDF LEAFLET

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55fd82d8ebad646cec000001/attachments/original/1463496002/Why_Vote_Leave.pdf?1463496002

Page 11

---

What about the repeated messages about Norway and Switzerland?

---

How can Leading Leavers - endorse a view Brexit which differs entirely to what we are presented with now - but now they are entirely for this hard Brexit

Please try and address these concerns.

Do you not admit that given the mixed messages - it is ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE to suggest some Vote Leavers, did NOT believe the UK would be leaving the CM/CU

These are the facts. You just need to accept them.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

These are the facts. You just need to accept them.

Then there's nothing I can do to convince you.

If watching ALL leaders of the Remain campaign admit that a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave the SM/CU, and if the major players of the Leave campaign said, during the referendum, the same thing - then there's nothing more I can do to persuade you otherwise.

As for Norway, I answered that above with my Farage video.

That Boris Johnson video is from 2013, not during the 2016 referendum - again, more misinformation.

For Daniel Hannan, I already said that ALL Remain leaders + ALL Leave leaders agreed to leave the CU/SM. Pointing to comments Daniel Hannan made, as if he turned the referendum on its head, and when he made those comments not during the referendum campaign is - again - misinformation.

Infini

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What makes you think I am anti EU?

I respect democracy. They voted to leave.

You are the one with the issue wanting to ignore the result.

They voted to leave without any idea of HOW to or WHAT that would entail even. Not only was the referendum an extremely knife edge result (51/49) but remaining costs feck all for them, leaving costs an absolute fortune if not costs people their livelyhoods. And if the referendum had been binding it would have been annulled legally because leave CHEATED.

The truth is this whole thing reeks of corruption, ignorance and cancerous levels of stupidy in the end and anyone honestly supporting Brexit is foolish to say the very least if not outright stupid simply because there are no facts or benefits to support this unless its how much corrupt CONS can screw over people with this whole thing.

Infini

Infini wrote: »

They voted to leave without any idea of HOW to or WHAT that would entail even. Not only was the referendum an extremely knife edge result (51/49)...

The truth is this whole thing reeks of corruption, ignorance and cancerous levels of stupidy in the end and anyone honestly supporting Brexit is foolish to say the very least if not outright stupid simply because there are no facts or benefits to support this unless its how much corrupt CONS can screw over people with this whole thing.

It was 52 - 48.

As for the rest, oh dear, oh dear... :rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Then there's nothing I can do to convince you.

If watching ALL leaders of the Remain campaign admit that a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave the SM/CU, and if the major players of the Leave campaign said, during the referendum, the same thing - then there's nothing more I can do to persuade you otherwise.

As for Norway, I answered that above with my Farage video.

That Boris Johnson video is from 2013, not during the 2016 referendum - again, more misinformation.

For Daniel Hannan, I already said that ALL Remain leaders + ALL Leave leaders agreed to leave the CU/SM. Pointing to comments Daniel Hannan made, as if he turned the referendum on its head, and when he made those comments not during the referendum campaign is - again - misinformation.

Any thoughts on my reply to you? Here it is in case you missed it.

weldoninhio

The U.K. voted to leave. They have been thwarted at every step by the EU. The EU know that if U.K. leaves and doesn’t disintegrate, other countries will be very quickly out the door after them.

Professor Moriarty

weldoninhio wrote: »

The U.K. voted to leave. They have been thwarted at every step by the EU. The EU know that if U.K. leaves and doesn’t disintegrate, other countries will be very quickly out the door after them.

Au contraire. Any country watching what's happening to Britain will not want to replicate that sh1tshow. As for Britain not disintegrating, well that's working out just fine and dandy.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Any thoughts on my reply to you? Here it is in case you missed it.

In summary, then:

• To prove lies, you must prove intentionality. Do you have any evidence of intentionality?
• Second, the video stands. All Remain leaders accepted that a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave the SM/CU. Can you provide evidence of a leading Remain campaigner who argued, during the referendum, that a vote to Leave was a vote to Remain in the SM/CU?
• Third, Mr. Gove did mention being part of a European free trade zone. Perhaps with a PM other than Mrs. May, this would have been possible. She intentionally chose a "close and special" partnership with the EU, which sidelined any prospect of that trade agreement.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

In summary, then:

To prove lies, you must prove intentionality. Do you have any evidence of intentionality?

Farage isn't a liar? Hahaha. Oh wait! Maybe you're right. Maybe he actually believed what he said. In which case he doesn't know what he's talking about. Okay, Farage is clueless. Agreed.

Second, the video stands. All Remain leaders accepted that a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave the SM/CU. Can you provide evidence of a leading Remain campaigner who argued, during the referendum, that a vote to Leave was a vote to Remain in the SM/CU?

The video stands nowhere but in a hall of shame. It's an amateurish attempt to misrepresent people with childish editing. The fact that you defend it when you now know it's a lie says quite a lot.

Third, Mr. Gove did mention being part of a European free trade zone. Perhaps with a PM other than Mrs. May, this would have been possible. She intentionally chose a "close and special" partnership with the EU, which sidelined any prospect of that trade agreement.

Look over there? No. You linked to an article as 'proof'. The article simply showed that Gove lied. Or was clueless. Or both.


Your 'evidence' doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's rubbish.

Infini

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was 52 - 48.

As for the rest, oh dear, oh dear... :rolleyes:

The rest is perfectly valid as those who support Brexit ignore all solid facts reason and information simply because they dont want to face facts. Thus theyre being stupid. Want to leave? Why? How? What for? And how do you expect to get anywhere without any deals or power whatsoever without screwing over the public?

Also Northern Ireland and Scotland did not vote to leave but they're being dragged out when people there did not vote for it not to mention the crap being caused with the border and causing problems for us yet another example of the legacy of British Feckups.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Then there's nothing I can do to convince you.

If watching ALL leaders of the Remain campaign admit that a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave the SM/CU, and if the major players of the Leave campaign said, during the referendum, the same thing - then there's nothing more I can do to persuade you otherwise.

As for Norway, I answered that above with my Farage video.

That Boris Johnson video is from 2013, not during the 2016 referendum - again, more misinformation.

For Daniel Hannan, I already said that ALL Remain leaders + ALL Leave leaders agreed to leave the CU/SM. Pointing to comments Daniel Hannan made, as if he turned the referendum on its head, and when he made those comments not during the referendum campaign is - again - misinformation.

If leaving the Single Market was madness in 2013 - why is it suddenly sane post 2016 Ref?

What of the Vote Leave Leaflet? i dont believe you have addressed this piece of evidence at all my friend

Then there's nothing I can do to convince you.

The feeling is mutual and the reverse is true- but this is a debate - i dare say it will continue -

Dismissing the clearly articulated views of Hannan- which he made DURING THE REFERENDUM - does that not suggest AT ALL - that mixed messages were at play in 2016?

Infini

weldoninhio wrote: »

The U.K. voted to leave. They have been thwarted at every step by the EU. The EU know that if U.K. leaves and doesn’t disintegrate, other countries will be very quickly out the door after them.

Seriously the UK is the one thwarting itself they had no idea HOW brexit or even a plan of how to proceed. The same ones saying they voted to leave say they should leave but ignore HOW to leave unless your plan is to cause the economy to inplode overnight with no concern or interest of the colateral damage that it could cause including fatalities, an economic crash or the Breakup of the UK itself.

The EU was clear from the start on what it wanted and what it was offering the UK on the otherhand was a scitzophrenic mess politically as it has no idea of what it wanted a result of an ignorant minority party trying to force things through without agreement or consensus only Brinkmanship and animousity.

Infini

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Then there's nothing I can do to convince you.

The whole problem is you arent willing to be convinced yourself, the people you hold up as examples are on record for being known Bullshìtters, liars, chancers and have no interest in the national interest only themselves. Boris and cummings are actively using misinformation tactics and trolling (eg. renaming the conservative party to FactCheckUK to try and pass off as the legitimate version) something that any decent person would reallise is a red flag strait away.

You have no interest in dealing in Facts when faced with them, you have no interest in the real concerns those that support remain here because your too afraid to admit your wrong and you are wrong because you have no facts or advantages to prove your views valid. You cannot convince anyone when you have no solid facts and link examples that have been debunked or proven invalid we have 11 threads on Brexit and the endless parade of failures, fùckups and ignorant stupidity of the British goverment making a balls over and over in the face of Solid hard facts and reality on the issue.

Infini

Infini wrote: »

You have no interest in dealing in Facts when faced with them, you have no interest in the real concerns those that support remain here because your too afraid to admit your wrong and you are wrong because you have no facts or advantages to prove your views valid. You cannot convince anyone when you have no solid facts and link examples that have been debunked or proven invalid we have 11 threads on Brexit and the endless parade of failures, fùckups and ignorant stupidity of the British goverment making a balls over and over in the face of Solid hard facts and reality on the issue.

Do you believe that the position I, and many others, hold - namely, that the nation-state should be pregnant with sovereignty, and not distributed to a supranational bureaucracy, is a legitimate position to hold?

I'm not referring to the UK here, but the principle in itself.

moon2

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you believe that the position I, and many others, hold - namely, that the nation-state should be pregnant with sovereignty, and not distributed to a supranational bureaucracy, is a legitimate position to hold?

I'm not referring to the UK here, but the principle in itself.

Let's play that principle out in a thought experiment.

Scenario 1:
The UK is sovereign. Every country who wishes to trade with the UK must follow the rules as dictated by the UK. Other countries abide by these rules and form trade agreements, thus giving up full control of all rules which apply to their own country. Trade occurs.

Scenario 2:
The UK is sovereign. Every country who wishes to trade with the UK must follow the rules as dictated by the UK. Other countries dislike these rules and so do not form trade agreements, thus retaining full control over all rules which apply to their own country. Trade does not occur.

Scenario 3:
The UK is sovereign. The UK, at the request of another sovereign power, agrees to modify its rules in order to make a trade agreement acceptable to that power, thus giving up full control over all rules which apply to the UK. At any point Britain can decide to cancel the trade agreement and regain full control over all rules. Trade occurs.

Scenario 4:
The UK, at the request of another sovereign power, agrees to modify its rules in order to make a trade agreement acceptable to that power, thus giving up full control over all rules which apply to the UK. The UK cannot unilaterally cancel the trade agreement and regain full control over all rules. The UK is not sovereign. Trade occurs

These simplistic examples should be enough to illustrate a point.

Scenario 4 and Scenario 1 are essentially the same thing, except they are from opposite perspectives. In both of these scenarios one country is a sovereign rule maker, and the other is a non-sovereign rule taker. The rule taker has no way to refuse rules made by the sovereign nation.

The existence of Brexit means that the UK is in a situation which more closely resembles Scenario 3. The UK currently accepts rules from another 'nation' and in return it gets trade agreements. At any point in time, as a sovereign nation, the UK can cancel its agreements and regain full control over the creation and enforcement of all rules.

However if the UK were to do this, and then make rules which are unacceptable to other nations, it could end up in a Scenario 2 situation. Similarly, if it were to refuse to take rules from another nation it may end up in the same situation.

In essence there are two options for making trade deals. The first is to conquer or vassalise another nation and force them to accept all your rules. The second is to compromise and accept (some) rules made by another nation. If conquering is off the table, you can still create trade agreements while retaining full sovereignty. You can even do this as part of a pool of friendly nations (the EU). The restriction, applied equally across all nations, is that if a nation wanted to exercise its full sovereign powers then it must first withdraw from the pool and trade agreements.

If one were to take your position literally, it would mean you're arguing that the UK should not take rules created and enforced by another nation, which would result in Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 situations playing out as trade deals are sought amongst other nations. The most likely outcome would be Scenario 2.

However if you're arguing that the UK should simply have the *ability* to unilaterally exit any trade agreement, or pooled sovereignty agreement, which resulted in 'foreign' rules being applied to the UK, then it has always had that ability.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you believe that the position I, and many others, hold - namely, that the nation-state should be pregnant with sovereignty, and not distributed to a supranational bureaucracy, is a legitimate position to hold?

I'm not referring to the UK here, but the principle in itself.

Why?

It is widely recognized that nations benefit from close ties and collaboration with like minded nations. Not every nation has the strength or resources to look after its own interests and so there is comfort in numbers. What else is the EU but an extension of that?
The period since the EU was formed has been the longest period of sustained peace for the continent in its documented history.

And each country gets to contribute towards the ruling parliaments in a proportional manner yet with a need for collective agreement.

It is a noble idea and every member state has benefited from being a part of it.

If you are so steadfast in your belief in the ideal of sovereignty, I presume you are eager for the disbandment of the Union of the United Kingdom so that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland no longer feel under the thrall of England.

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

It was 52 - 48.

As for the rest, oh dear, oh dear... :rolleyes:

Or to be more precise: 51.89%: 48.11%

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've done this extensively in my previous post.

I am against the concept of pooled sovereignty. By definition, that must mean I'm in favour of a repratriation of that pooled sovereignty back to the nation-state. I believe in the model which argues that citizens should directly elect/remove legislators. Once you move up the EU ladder, those legislators become more distant. That's not the type of political direction I wish to see.

This isn't an economic argument; it's an argument in favour of controlling the sovereignty hitherto pooled with the EU.

It is economically neutral: as the decision could be economically advantageous or disadvantageous. Regardless of the economics, the sovereignty point stands.

It's not economically neutral: by definition you are erecting trade barriers which causes friction and reduces economic activity. Hence by definition it will be economically disadvantageous.

Some argue that pooling sovereignty is a good thing, and they are entitled to that worldview. My perspective is clear - that power should, as much as possible, be controlled by the nation-state.

Why a "nation" state? What about places where separate nations make up a given location? Should genocide be allowed? Should the minority community be expelled?

PS : did you ever answer my questions? I haven't seen anything

weldoninhio

Infini wrote: »

Seriously the UK is the one thwarting itself they had no idea HOW brexit or even a plan of how to proceed. The same ones saying they voted to leave say they should leave but ignore HOW to leave unless your plan is to cause the economy to inplode overnight with no concern or interest of the colateral damage that it could cause including fatalities, an economic crash or the Breakup of the UK itself.

The EU was clear from the start on what it wanted and what it was offering the UK on the otherhand was a scitzophrenic mess politically as it has no idea of what it wanted a result of an ignorant minority party trying to force things through without agreement or consensus only Brinkmanship and animousity.

The EU offered the U.K. a deal twice. The U.K. govt turned it down twice. Is the EU going to offer the U.K. a better deal in the future? Going by their posturing the answer to that is no, so why are they offering extensions? To screw U.K. democracy and try to force them into another vote.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you believe that the position I, and many others, hold - namely, that the nation-state should be pregnant with sovereignty, and not distributed to a supranational bureaucracy, is a legitimate position to hold?

Yes, no-one says the Norwegians were crazy to stall the process of joining the EU where they did, and they did it for precisely this reason, they were uncomfortable pooling any more sovereignty with the EU. Likewise for the UK, it's a view I don't share, but you are perfectly entitled to it.

The problem for the UK is that they already pooled that sovereignty in the quest for economic growth. Thatcher was a big booster of the Single Market, and much of the economic development in the UK since her day has been based on the Single Market - huge growth in services, and what manufacturing remains is integrated into a JIT European network of suppliers.

So if you want to back out of that pooled sovereignty, of the Single Market, it is going to be extremely costly and painful.

And that, in turn, is a problem for us in Ireland and the EU. Johnson has effectively handed us Northern Ireland, which is cool, but the coming crash in the UK will have knock-on effects on EU and Irish growth, perhaps even a recession. So you should not be surprised when most Irish people back the 48.11% of UK voters who think it is a bad idea.

Zubeneschamali

weldoninhio wrote: »

Is the EU going to offer the U.K. a better deal in the future?

Maybe. In one scenario, Johnson wins a huge majority next month and passes his WA. Now he can do as he pleases, and is no longer beholden to the Eurosceptic wing of his party - he is free to pivot to a business friendly soft Brexit and avoid the economic disaster he has teed up at the moment. THe EU will be happy to oblige with a softer Brexit because it saves them a metric buttload of money.

In another scenario, Labour close the gap, there's a hung Parliament and we get a Labour/LibDem/SNP government. They ask the EU for a Norway type deal, and the EU are happy to help out because it saves them a metric buttload of money.

Then the Alliance government holds a Referendum, and we get either Remain or Soft Brexit.

We should never lose sight of the fact that if Brexit costs the UK £70 billion over 10 years, much of that figure is trade with the EU, and the EU will lose a similar amount - over a much bigger market, but still a lot of cash.