Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Just a reminder that the referendum according to the serving PM at the time was a once in a generation event to decide once and for all on our relationship with the EU. 

He was complacent and couldn’t imagine a defeat. Likewise many Remainers he failed to articulate the difficulties we would have trying to extricate ourselves from its institutions.

And now you want another go at it, how about best of three, it’s paper scissors stones. 

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

Just a reminder that the referendum according to the serving PM at the time was a once in a generation event to decide once and for all on our relationship with the EU. 

He was complacent and couldn’t imagine a defeat. Likewise many Remainers he failed to articulate the difficulties we would have trying to extricate ourselves from its institutions.

And now you want another go at it, how about best of three, it’s paper scissors stones. 

Ray

When have I said I want another go at it? Please read what I have written. 

The fact that Cameron may have said the referendum was a once in a generation event does not automatically preclude a confirmatory call to the people. (And even if it did, since when has a politician never gone back on anything they may have said?)

Yes Cameron was complacent. That many “remainers” failed to to articulate the difficulties is indeed a fact - but two years ago no-one had delved into the detail of what leaving meant in practice other than not being in the EU (and other than the headline misassumptions, deceit and hype), and no-one had delved into what leaving would actually entail, nor into what would be the real effects on the economy and on people - a referendum was presented with -what was it, 3? 4? months’ notice.

As I did say, no-one has yet advanced any reasoned argument against a confirmatory  referendum now the realities are far clearer. And a confirmatory referendum is far from being a repeat of the original, for all the reasons I’ve already stated, and as I pointed out would show true democracy at work - and give strength to the difficult process of leaving if that is the outcome. 

It is abundantly clear that the reason why people do not want a confirmatory referendum is because they beliece it will go against their personal wishes, and that they fear it because they actually believe the majority would go against them. Now, where is the democracy in that?

“When have I said I want another go at it?”

Erm..confirmatory referendum...ring any bells?

thebigfredc posted:

 

Some observations from me:

You really need to widen your social circle as you seem to be hanging out with some seriously thick people.

You forgot (they forgot) to mention the NHS bus.

 Some people  voted 'remain' for equally ridiculous and ill-informed reasons such as, for example, because they like the Eurovision Song contest or they like going on holiday to Majorca.

Ray

 

Blimey. Welcome to the level of debate. Don't know about you Ray but I didn't choose my in-laws and that extended family based on their intelligence, notwithstanding that their daughter is the stand-out clever one. Lucky me eh? Nor did I choose who to work with and for purely on their Mensa test results. When I was invited to become manager I didn't think to turn it down on the basis that some of the lesser able staff looked like the sort of people who might vote out in some unlikely future referendum on EU membership. Maybe you do have that luxury; congratulations.

It wasn't an exhaustive list; it was a pointer to the simple fact that The Will Of The People is not a massive majority that unites the country; if you take out the stupid reasons for voting and add in the moronic idle student vote - those who acc to my son fresh out of uni are almost unanimous in wanting to remain, the Will Of The People is actually the will of a something like a quarter to a third of the public. And that is the exact point - there is no solid driving uniting force from the country demanding that we leave. It's not the will of the people, it's too many parties refusing to admit that it needs a rethink, now that we all have a much much better awareness of the realities and the consequences of leaving. Yet it's constantly The Will Of The People that's used as The Reason for continuing down this barmy path.

Thanks by the way for making my point for me. Yes, I do mix with some idiots, but not largely through choice. Almost to a man my friends are stayers. But you have hit on the crux of it, that such a massive decision on such complex matters and with such enormous ramifications requires careful thought and consideration. But - by your own admission, see above - too many thick stupid short-sighted people have swayed it. We're facing the most calamitous political decision in generations because people who are too stupid to be allowed a say were given one. 

thebigfredc posted:

“When have I said I want another go at it?”

Erm..confirmatory referendum...ring any bells?

Please wake up!

A confirmatory referendum, now more than two years later, once the whole picture of what Brexit means is clear (unlike at the time of the 2016 referendum), would be a referendum to confirm that people want to go ahead now they know what it entails - not them confirming what they voted for in 2016 -  is far from “another go at it” as you disingenuously suggest, ratger it is purely wisdom before pressing the button on something that few if any envisaged nywhere near fully at the time of indicating a choice in 2016.

thebigfredc posted:

Just a reminder that the referendum according to the serving PM at the time was a once in a generation event to decide once and for all on our relationship with the EU. 

He was complacent and couldn’t imagine a defeat. Likewise many Remainers he failed to articulate the difficulties we would have trying to extricate ourselves from its institutions.

And now you want another go at it, how about best of three, it’s paper scissors stones. 

Ray

And this... It's still some kind of game that one side won and the other lost, acc to some. Cameron was complacent. The level of debate was atrocious - I used to drive to work listening to the 8:10 interview on Today and regularly shouted at the radio during the campaign wishing they'd discuss important points or the bigger picture, not get bogged down in pointless diversionary trivia. But apparently because an atrocious campaign was led by a complacent leader, we just have to accept it? Again no, that's another reason for trying again; armed with much more relevant knowledge and a fuller idea of the realities and the consequences, and knowing now how much we were lied to and misled, how many still stand by the original outcome?

I don't know anyone who now wishes to have voted out having originally voted in. I know plenty who would relish reversing their out vote.

Why not find out what the current 'will of the people' is once the terms of exit are known, before burning our bridges, rather than relying on what it was two years ago, before 'the people' found out the real cost of leaving the EU.

Since the Brexit campaign is supposed to support democracy, then this is an opportunity to show that support, rather than looking backward to a now outdated result that's been overtaken by increasing knowledge and clarity (unless, of course, you believe that democracy is best served by lies and deception).

The answer is abundently clear - simply because those who oppose the idea believe and fear that the current will of the people is contrary to their own personal desires.

Innocent Bystander posted:

The answer is abundently clear - simply because those who oppose the idea believe and fear that the current will of the people is contrary to their own personal desires.

Implement the current known will of the people and then if the electorate is up for it, have another referendum after the next General  Election which will of course be part of the relevant  Parties’ mandates. Couldn’t be fairer, eh?

For the avoidance of doubt, I voted “Remain” and for the avoidance of further doubt, I would vote again to Remain, based on the information available to me about the prospects of the UK’s future if we remain or if we leave. (“Prospects” covers the whole gambit of issues, not just economic)

Based on conversations with friends and acquaintances, a public meeting convened by my MP, news reports and a variety of small meetings involving discussions about EASA, I am confident that many people who voted Leave, now consider that was a mistake. I have yet to meet anybody who voted Remain who considers they made a mistake.

If the Electorate were given the opportunity now, to vote Remain v Leave, my guess is that Remain would poll significantly more votes than Leave.

If the Electorate is given the opportunity to vote once a Deal has been established, by which time further new facts and projections will have emerged, then the nature of the Deal could well influence the outcome of such a poll.

Would such a poll be Deal v Leave (without the Deal)

Or might it be, as IB has suggested, a confirmation to Leave (with whatever Deal is on the table) v Remain

The real purpose of my above illustrations is to elicit from this (relatively) polite and informed Forum, the Step-by-Step programme of events and actions that will be required in order for the Electorate to be given the opportunity to vote, after negotiations are complete, but before the UK is finally committed to Leave the EU.

For example, I have signed up to a campaign aimed at demanding the Government gives the Electorate a meaningful vote. MPs have been promised a meaningful vote.

What do I have to do, what do you have to do, in order to get a vote, and from my point of view, hopefully put an end to this disastrous episode in our history (by Remaining part of the EU).

Interesting thread this, certain to invite strong opinions. For my part I voted to leave for sovereignty, immigration and cultural reasons. I also didn't like the rascist and xenophobic slurs thrown at Brexiteers for wanting to clamp down on immigration. New Zealand, Australia and Canada are absolutely desperate for healthcare professionals and other skilled migrants but they won't let anyone in unless they have a job to go to and can prove they can support themselves and their families for the duration of their VISAs. Rather than being labelled as rascist and xenophibic they're held-up as beacons of a sensible immigration policy.

Anyway, I'm digressing - the reason for my post is to say I wish I'd voted "remain" and that's because I believe this government has made a God-awful mess of the exit negotiations and we're going to end up in a worse place than we were before. It's scaring the crap out of me and I wish I could go back and vote all over again.

Don Atkinson posted:

 

The real purpose of my above illustrations is to elicit from this (relatively) polite and informed Forum, the Step-by-Step programme of events and actions that will be required in order for the Electorate to be given the opportunity to vote, after negotiations are complete, but before the UK is finally committed to Leave the EU.

For example, I have signed up to a campaign aimed at demanding the Government gives the Electorate a meaningful vote. MPs have been promised a meaningful vote.

What do I have to do, what do you have to do, in order to get a vote, and from my point of view, hopefully put an end to this disastrous episode in our history (by Remaining part of the EU).

I wish I knew, as I’d have been doing it! Unfortunately I don’t even have an MP to lobby.

There was that pressure group trying to get another referendum, “the people’s vote”, with Tony Robinson - I don’t know where they are with it, or whether they have ways for people to help more directly.

Jonners posted:

Interesting thread this, certain to invite strong opinions. For my part I voted to leave for sovereignty, immigration and cultural reasons. I also didn't like the rascist and xenophobic slurs thrown at Brexiteers for wanting to clamp down on immigration. New Zealand, Australia and Canada are absolutely desperate for healthcare professionals and other skilled migrants but they won't let anyone in unless they have a job to go to and can prove they can support themselves and their families for the duration of their VISAs. Rather than being labelled as rascist and xenophibic they're held-up as beacons of a sensible immigration policy.

Anyway, I'm digressing - the reason for my post is to say I wish I'd voted "remain" and that's because I believe this government has made a God-awful mess of the exit negotiations and we're going to end up in a worse place than we were before. It's scaring the crap out of me and I wish I could go back and vote all over again.

Hi Jonners,

Many thanks for your clear reasons for voting one way and now having a change of mind.

Rather depressingly, I have been told by a reliable source (see my post a few pages back) that TM is convinced that the principle issue that drove the referendum outcome was immigration. And worse still, she firmly believes this is still the driving issue for the "floating voter" element of the Referendum AND future general Elections. QED immigration is a vote-winner. Brexit will demonstrate her determination to control immigration and thus secure her future as PM until retirement.

Now, I appreciate that life (and Brexit) is a bit more involved than the above paragraph, but..........

PS note: the Government and Ministers often refer to "controlling" immigration. This is not quite the same as "reducing" immigration, but talking to others, many people don't recognise the difference.

I've a theory on voting Don. It's only a theory but I reckon the biggest demographic which voted to leave on immigration grounds would never vote Tory if their lives depended on it. That demographic I believe votes Labour and to narrow it down further, I reckon it's what's traditionally known as "working class". It's these folk who I believe have seen their jobs taken by manual labourers, shop workers, warehouse and factory staff, etc coming in from the EU.

So, in short if Teresa May reckons Immigration is a vote-winner she's right - but only for Brexit. These guys ain't gonna vote Tory and proof of the pudding is in the rapid decline of UKIP who sucked up a lot of disaffected working-class voters in the previous General Election. Once they got what they wanted with the Referendum they naffed - off back to Labour as the post-General Election stats suggested.

You are no doubt correct Jonners.

I mentioned a few pages back that my brothers and cousins ( and their wives) who all live in the NE voted to Leave. (and the NE was a big "Leave" demographic, both Conservative and labour). To a man (and woman) they all cited immigration as the issue or giving Cameron a kick up the proverbial a*se. Funny thing is :-

a) they all vote Conservative

b) they accept there are very, very few (recent *) immigrants living in the NE - (let's face it, who would want to !)

c) they all regret voting to leave.

* many of us are Scandinavian immigrants who arrived between the Romans and the Normans........

For sure, come the next General Election, nobody in the NE who traditionally votes Labour, will vote Conservative in support of T May. Just illustrates how disconnected the woman is.

Florestan posted:

If I understand the need to stay, the remainers (remoaners?) [spell check is having issues?] want the dominant EU to continue dishing out the rules for how things are going to be.  ie: unbelievable regulation / control / costs but most importantly - open borders.  Is their anything else here I have missed?  Without getting into specifics maybe most of the arguments of why 'the majority' voted to Brexit can probably fit somewhere within this overall rubric?

Mostly incorrect, the remainers want the U.K. to have a large say (the U.K. has a voting bloc’ approx 3x the power per citizen of the average) in setting common rules for the good of the U.K. and the rest of the EU.  While the Brexiteers want the U.K. to just have to abide by whatever the EU (as well as US, and others) say without us to trade with the major part of the UKs export market (don’t forget that not only do EU rule apply to the EU market but are also mutually recognised with other nations and trading blocks).

As for open borders, well did you know that the U.K. could require anyone moving to the U.K. who are not working to have sufficient means to not be a burden on the state (ie. not require benefits) and also to have private medical insurance?  But aside from that countries such have India have already mooted that any trade deal could be dependent on opening the U.K. to Indian nationals more.

To be picky. According to the EU free-movement rules anyone can stay for 90 days. If you can not show you have a full supporting job after this you can be asked to leave the country. Exception (as you stated) either if you can show you are independently wealthy with your own full-coverage private health insurance or if you came to the country  to study at an approved school (and you can show you have sufficient means incl. tuition fees and have a private health insurance). And if you lose that job - tough luck!!

When you have worked in a country for five years you have the right to apply to stay permanently, This include wife/registered partner and children up to 19. 

These are the EU rules on "free movement" - it is not the same as free immigration. But any country can decide locally to have more open borders (like the UK-government did in the early 2000:s trying to get more political support in the EU from Poland and and others from the eastern bloc). 

But this can hardly be news for anyone in the UK? These rules are clearly posted on the EU website in all languages,

jlarsson posted:

To be picky. According to the EU free-movement rules anyone can stay for 90 days. If you can not show you have a full supporting job after this you can be asked to leave the country. Exception (as you stated) either if you can show you are independently wealthy with your own full-coverage private health insurance or if you came to the country  to study at an approved school (and you can show you have sufficient means incl. tuition fees and have a private health insurance). And if you lose that job - tough luck!!

When you have worked in a country for five years you have the right to apply to stay permanently, This include wife/registered partner and children up to 19. 

These are the EU rules on "free movement" - it is not the same as free immigration. But any country can decide locally to have more open borders (like the UK-government did in the early 2000:s trying to get more political support in the EU from Poland and and others from the eastern bloc). 

But this can hardly be news for anyone in the UK? These rules are clearly posted on the EU website in all languages,

 

I doubt that the majority of people in Britain have ever even thought of looking up the rules, just taking what is said by UK Gov or the media. As peviously indicated, the whole immigration thing surrounding Brexit was full of lies, deceipt, media hype, and false assumption (and, worse, pandered to, and was fuelled by nationalism and latent racism in some sectors of society).

Innocent Bystander posted:

jlarsson posted:

 

I doubt that the majority of people in Britain have ever even thought of looking up the rules, just taking what is said by UK Gov or the media. As peviously indicated, the whole immigration thing surrounding Brexit was full of lies, deceipt, media hype, and false assumption (and, worse, pandered to, and was fuelled by nationalism and latent racism in some sectors of society).

 

Agreed. And post-Brexit, when HMG has 'taken back control' of our borders etc and nothing has really changed in many peoples' perception of what they don't like about 'immigration, I wonder what happens then? Who will that section of the electorate and media blame? The government won't be able to point to Brussels.  Dissatisfaction could reach even higher levels. Not a happy prospect.  

jlarsson posted:

To be picky. According to the EU free-movement rules anyone can stay for 90 days. If you can not show you have a full supporting job after this you can be asked to leave the country. Exception (as you stated) either if you can show you are independently wealthy with your own full-coverage private health insurance or if you came to the country  to study at an approved school (and you can show you have sufficient means incl. tuition fees and have a private health insurance). And if you lose that job - tough luck!!

When you have worked in a country for five years you have the right to apply to stay permanently, This include wife/registered partner and children up to 19. 

These are the EU rules on "free movement" - it is not the same as free immigration. But any country can decide locally to have more open borders (like the UK-government did in the early 2000:s trying to get more political support in the EU from Poland and and others from the eastern bloc). 

But this can hardly be news for anyone in the UK? These rules are clearly posted on the EU website in all languages,

Not to be picky but I just don't think the above replies and those always putting down the supporters of Brexit understand what they are criticizing.

This above quoted explanation is reasonable for an explanation for free-movement of current EU citizens.  I don't think the emphasis behind Brexit was entirely focused on this aspect as much as the issue of an immigration, emigration, or refugee system (from outside the EU to within it).

Back to the explanation above though first.  Second sentence states that an EU citizen has 90 days stay in another EU country.  Fine, but someone who knows please tell me that this is actually enforced?  What are the statistics on the abuse of this?

Secondly, from the second paragraph, what happens to the 20th child and beyond ?  Do they have to stay behind or find another country to emigrate to ?   

So, please tell me what 'free-movement' of EU citizens has to do with immigration, emigration, or refugee claims?  Was a million plus Syrian refugees into Germany considered 'free-movement?'

When one refers to 'open borders' these days, I think most would consider this in the context of 'non-citizens' as the first meaning.  In the case of the EU, the secondary meaning could mean the movement of citizens within EU countries.  As for Brexit, both definitions become a concern because Britain cannot control what Germany or another EU country decides and eventually these matters effect Britain and elsewhere.

My view is that people here saying they were lied to is wrong.  There is some truth and history to provide enough evidence that Britain (or those who want Brexit) want more control over their own border.  What is unreasonable about this?  You are not much of a country anymore if you want the current status quo to continue.

Heads up, Don. My weekend i paper told me that papers will be released this week by the British government on subjects including aviation, and which include contingency planning for  a no-deal Brexit. R4 news just now have said it will be Thursday.

The newspaper said there were about seventy subject areas, and that we should not expect papers to be released on all at once.

C.

*on all of them at once.

[@mention:1566878603872495] the point is that everything that is blamed on the EU (well most of it) is actually the fault of the U.K. Government...

Maybe also to some extent blame lies on the British public, who, as a generalisation never seemed to take EU politics seriously: Turnout to vote for MEPs typically has been only half that as turnout for UK Gov (“general”) elections, and that is despite running the the MEP elections concurrently with local authority elections - I suspect turnout would have been even lower if they had been on their own. I don’t know if reversal of British apathy to/disinterest in, and disengagement from, EU politics would have made any difference, but the position as it was is unlikely to have provided positive influence.

Florestan posted:

My view is that people here saying they were lied to is wrong.  There is some truth and history to provide enough evidence that Britain (or those who want Brexit) want more control over their own border.  What is unreasonable about this?  You are not much of a country anymore if you want the current status quo to continue.

Perhaps you should take a look at the facts and bare in mind we do have control of immigration from none EU countries. Although not all leave voters know this. I was actually told by brexiteer on the eve of the vote, they where voting to leave the EU to “keep the Pakistanis out”.

 https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

I recall you live in the USA, presumably you or your ancensters are/where immigrants. So, why are you so against immigrants?