nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Kermit.de.frog

The next parliament will be a Brexit parliament - they know that and they don't want that. That would represent what the people voted for and can't have that.

They don't accept the democratic result of the referendum.

<split from the main Brexit thread and renamed. This appears to be a divisive issue, please don't let it get too salty. But otherwise, have fun you guys!>

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Kermit.de.frog

quokula wrote: »

Can you point out the bit of the ballot paper that mentions the single market, the customs union, Euratom, or the ECJ or EFTA court for example?

Nope. They voted to leave the EU. Leaving the CU and SM is ENTIRELY consistent with that no matter how much you try to deny it.

The ECJ, EFTA etc are separate issues for the UK to decide on.

They will decide on the closeness of the relationship in the trade talks after they have left as per the process.

quokula

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Nope. They voted to leave the EU. Leaving the CU and SM is ENTIRELY consistent with that no matter how much you try to deny it.

That is just factually false, aside from the fact that many prominent Brexit campaigners actively promised staying in the CU and / or SM during the campaign.

briany

quokula wrote: »

That is just factually false, aside from the fact that many prominent Brexit campaigners actively promised staying in the CU and / or SM during the campaign.

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

Vote Leave leaflet. P.11, entry no. 1. Interesting reading!

Hurrache

skallywag wrote: »

Two snowflakes does not make a White Christmas, to be fair.

Selective acknowledgement at its finest.

Hurrache

briany wrote: »

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

Vote Leave leaflet. P.11, entry no. 1. Interesting reading!

What a terrible piece of crap that is.

hotmail.com

Some Irish are in denial about the situation.

They want to bring up the dodgy practices of the Leave Campaign and that people didn't really know what they were voting for.

This ignores the long anti EU attitude the Brits have had. They don't feel European in the same way French or Dutch people see themselves. This isn't a minority view, it's a view held by a large majority of Brits. They hold more affection for current and former colonies that speak English, in particular the United States.

It was no accident or mistake that Leave won in 2016.

Tea Shock

In 2016, people voted for:

"The easiest deal in history"

and

"They will come running down the road after us"

etc

I think some people should read every major party’s 2017 manifesto. ALL of them pledged to leave the EU WITH a deal! So leaving with a deal is what people voted for in 2016 and again in 2017

But then in 2016 Leave won and the leave campaign moved the goal posts and to this day, few people seem not to have noticed

The 2017 Tory manifesto,

https://conservatives.com/manifesto

Page 30:

"The best possible deal for Britain as we leave the EU delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit"

The 2017 Labour manifesto

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/#first

"a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain".

kowloon

briany wrote: »

If the UK took ten years to leave the EU, would that mean that the referendum was respected? All it said was about the UK leaving the EU, it didn't say when it had to happen by. If the UK stayed in the CU and SM, would the the referendum be respected? All it said was about leaving the EU, not the SM or CU as well.

I bet those who drafted the original referendum legislation are wishing they'd at least thought of a slightly more in-depth, nuanced question.

I'd say the vast majority of people voting to leave voted that way in the assumption that it would include the CU and SM, and probably the European Court of Human Rights for good measure.

liamtech

briany wrote: »

Back to the diagram, everybody.

Kermit could you actually address the above - and how it relates to your Ballot from 2016

And also address this leave leaflet from 2016 - page 11

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

Could you do that Kermit - leaflet courtesy of Briany

Your well up for a debate we can see that - why not actually debate what is being asked - as opposed to refusing to comment

Pretty soon you will start chanting 'TAKE BACK CONTROL' and 'GET BREXIT DONE' - (if not 'NO SURRENDER' too)

skallywag

liamtech wrote: »

...(if not 'NO SURRENDER' too)

What is that meant to mean?

Duane Dibbley

Hurrache wrote: »

Why are you ignoring everything false that came from Leave campaigners, including those in the government at the time, as to what Brexit means?

Did the Tories, Labour and all the other remain parties explain what brexit ment?

The voters were warned what would be lost if the voted to leave the EU

liamtech

skallywag wrote: »

What is that meant to mean?

Its a simple reference to the fact that this user, who is entitled to his opinion, has failed to explain said opinion repeatedly - he seems to imply that what ever the cost, how ever much it hurts, and regardless of the leave campaigns lies - Get brexit done -

which is remarkably similar to this guy

https://twitter.com/keithbelfast/status/834548717168492544

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">DUP's Nelson McCausland in his absolute element - No plans and no cares for the people of NI. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NolanLIVE?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#NolanLIVE</a> <a href="https://t.co/NgppBKIw6l">pic.twitter.com/NgppBKIw6l</a></p>— Keith "Halloween Name" Anderson (@keithbelfast) <a href="

https://twitter.com/keithbelfast/status/834548717168492544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February

22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I want to hear him coherently explain why his opinion is completely in line with Hard ERG, Tories, and the DUP before the knife was sunk in by BoJo

In fact why dont you answer these questions too - your thinking seems to be very much in line with Kermit's

skallywag wrote: »

Meaning what exactly?

A vote for leaving was a vote for leaving the customs union, having a border with the North, etc, etc. You would have to be pretty simple to interpret it any other way. Could things be negotiated after? Possibly. But leave clearly meant leave everything associated with the EU, in my humble opinion at least.

skallywag wrote: »

Are you really sure about that? i.e. the leave campaign told their supporters that they would be staying in the SM/CU? That's not how I remember it anyway ...

Hurrache

hotmail.com wrote: »

Some Irish are in denial about the situation.

They want to bring up the dodgy practices of the Leave Campaign and that people didn't really know what they were voting for.

This ignores the long anti EU attitude the Brits have had.

Not at all, they aren't mutually exclusive.

prawnsambo

This faux-simplistic 'Leaving the EU is leaving all its constituent parts' is nonsense. The actual process is spelled out clearly in a five paragraph section of the Lisbon Treaty: "The treaties shall cease to apply". That's it in its entirety. You can remain a member of the CU, SM or even both. But you are no longer a member and the treaties that made you one are gone. Fini.

liamtech

prawnsambo wrote: »

This faux-simplistic 'Leaving the EU is leaving all its constituent parts' is nonsense. The actual process is spelled out clearly in a five paragraph section of the Lisbon Treaty: "The treaties shall cease to apply". That's it in its entirety. You can remain a member of the CU, SM or even both. But you are no longer a member and the treaties that made you one are gone. Fini.

i completely agree with you and i honestly find it infuriating when people cite Tory Anti-2ndRef Nonsense, or the usual line that 'leaving the CUCM was what people wanted -

Im genuinely waiting to see if someone can articulate it, citing evidence for a change - not that i will agree, but i would respect users more if they can actually articulate an argument demonstrating that Leave meant leave everything

which they wont - because they cant - its not possible - which is why they quote tory/BXP proaganda - leave means leave - get brexit done - take back control -

Kermit and Skallywag - over to you

kowloon

prawnsambo wrote: »

This faux-simplistic 'Leaving the EU is leaving all its constituent parts' is nonsense. The actual process is spelled out clearly in a five paragraph section of the Lisbon Treaty: "The treaties shall cease to apply". That's it in its entirety. You can remain a member of the CU, SM or even both. But you are no longer a member and the treaties that made you one are gone. Fini.

I seriously doubt that most leave voters would consider much past the 'it's got Europe in the name so it's bad' factor.

briany

Map of the countries participating in the Single Market. Dark Blue is EU countries. Light blue is non-EU countries who participate in the Single Market thanks to either their European Free Trade Association (EFTA) membership, or via a litany of bi-lateral trade agreements (Switzerland). Light and dark blue countries comprise what is known as the European Economic Area (EEA).

It is worth noting at this point that any amount of Single Market access for the UK would require it to agree to SM rules, even if only in certain areas. Because taking rules from the EU without having any say on their formation is such a big sticking point for many hardcore Brexiteers, it technically means that no bi-lateral trade agreement with the EU is acceptable, and therefore there can never be one, unless the EU totally caves.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

90% of them elected on a platform to deliver the result of the referendum. It was in all the main party manifestos. Elected on a leave platform effectively.

It's just a continuous cycle of denial and whataboutery.

They voted to leave.

*sigh*

Go easy with the sighing - you might wear out your lungs.

The result of the referendum was already "delivered" by the time the 2017 election took place, i.e. the concept of leaving was set in motion. The referendum did not define the terms of that concept, so the people sent their choice of MPs to Westminster to argue amongst themselves as to what form Brexit should take.

The one party being most obstructive in pursuing this process (at the present time) is ... the Tory Party. It's the Tory PM Johnson who pulled the EU's latest deal because he wants to gamble the country's future economic wellbeing in the hopes of getting a Tory majority (and securing his premiership) for the next five years.

Either you accept that the people's representatives, as voted for by the people, are representing the wishes of the people who voted for them, or you're effectively saying that those same people shouldn't be trusted with a ballot paper ... which undermines your argument that the results of the 2016 glorified opinion poll should be translated into unalterable law.

If the electorate returns another hung parliament, will you want them to vote again? :pac:

RobMc59

hotmail.com wrote: »

Some Irish are in denial about the situation.

They want to bring up the dodgy practices of the Leave Campaign and that people didn't really know what they were voting for.

This ignores the long anti EU attitude the Brits have had. They don't feel European in the same way French or Dutch people see themselves. This isn't a minority view, it's a view held by a large majority of Brits. They hold more affection for current and former colonies that speak English, in particular the United States.

It was no accident or mistake that Leave won in 2016.

For years the UK public have been fed stories of "eastern european scroungers"by the press.That is probably the main reason closely followed by people like Farage with his BS stories plus lies about EU bureaucracy.
There is an element of anti EU sentiment in the older population which I personally find ironic as all those who voted to leave and still wish to leave enjoy continental holidays and other advantages associated with being in the EU.
On the plus side(from a personal point of view),many people I know who voted to leave now regret it.
As a closing observation,when looking up the latest brexit news on UK search engines the UK media is unashamedly pro-brexit..

hotmail.com

RobMc59 wrote: »

For years the UK public have been fed stories of "eastern european scroungers"by the press.That is probably the main reason closely followed by people like Farage with his BS stories plus lies about EU bureaucracy.
There is an element of anti EU sentiment in the older population which I personally find ironic as all those who voted to leave and still wish to leave enjoy continental holidays and other advantages associated with being in the EU.
On the plus side(from a personal point of view),many people I know who voted to leave now regret it.
As a closing observation,when looking up the latest brexit news on UK search engines the UK media is unashamedly pro-brexit..

How do you explain the Euro scepticism before the accession of the Eastern European countries?

liamtech

hotmail.com wrote: »

How do you explain the Euro scepticism before the accession of the Eastern European countries?

'Laws that they make over there that we cant change' - (all of which were sensible and supported by Major Uk Parties)

Supranational Bureaucracy - (again all sensible appointed by the MEPs and the commissioners

They are trying to make an Empire!!!! - nonsense

We beat them in the war didnt we - whatever

Every time anything went wrong in the UK, europe was blamed, ever since Thatchers 'we want our money back' nonsense

Just a few examples - 'foreign spongers' is a relatively new concept as is 'terrorists are coming in'

all nonsense - and now all Tory Policy:rolleyes:

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

How do you explain the Euro scepticism before the accession of the Eastern European countries?

Legacy of imperialism.

Can't really fault them given that many of them at that time were raised on tales of the UK's glory, honour and prestige and to seem them now become members of a club must have conflicted with that, but, that is of a different time.

Previous empires did not fade away overnight, I'm sure there was a similar yearning for times recently past but, those days are most certainly gone.

Brexit may give a dead cat bounce to those who yearn for it but, cohesiveness is the way forward, and if it isn't then it spells trouble for all of us because the alternative will be accompanied by bickering, tit for tat attempts to undermine neighbouring economies and in worst cases, physical conflict.

RobMc59

hotmail.com wrote: »

How do you explain the Euro scepticism before the accession of the Eastern European countries?

I'd put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the British press and politicians with ulterior motives. Although I must admit its only since joining boards I've realised how bad the UK press is-many people (especially older people)take as gospel what the press feeds them unfortunately.

hotmail.com

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the British press and politicians with ulterior motives. Although I must admit its only since joining boards I've realised how bad the UK press is-many people (especially older people)take as gospel what the press feeds them unfortunately.

I just don't buy that the press is the cause of the Euro scepticism. It seems to run much deeper than that.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just don't buy that the press is the cause of the Euro scepticism. It seems to run much deeper than that.

What do you think is the cause?

RobMc59

Tell me how wrote: »

Legacy of imperialism.

Can't really fault them given that many of them at that time were raised on tails of the UK's glory, honour and prestige and to seem them now become members of a club must have conflicted with that, but, that is of a different time.

Previous empires did not fade away overnight, I'm sure there was a similar yearning for times recently past but, those days are most certainly gone.

Brexit may give a dead cat bounce to those who yearn for it but, cohesiveness is the way forward, and if it isn't then it spells trouble for all of us because the alternative will be accompanied by bickering, tit for tat attempts to undermine neighbouring economies and in worst cases, physical conflict.

I'd agree with your assessment but if you're honest,France has the same view of themselves as the British-ie:still a reasonably powerful country in terms of their position in the world order(probably frontrunners behind the US,China and Russia)
That's where the similarities end though,as France understands the advantages and prestige it gains from being in the EU.The deluded fools who want brexit think the UK can do it on their own and don't accept the world has moved on.

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think is the cause?

Britons don't see themselves as Europeans.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

Britons don't see themselves as Europeans.

That's a very simplistic statement.

The interesting question is, why don't they see themselves as such?

Duane Dibbley

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just don't buy that the press is the cause of the Euro scepticism. It seems to run much deeper than that.

It does. I had the feeling in the 90s when working in Germany where the squaddies were based.

I always found there nationalism overbearing and there resentment of Mainland Europeans was amazing.

The Military families I would think has a massive vote leave preference.

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote: »

That's a very simplistic statement.

The interesting question is, why don't they see themselves as such?

Is this the first time you've heard this argument?