Cameron believed that Britain could prosper within a *reformed* EU, and this is how he pushed the campaign. That's why it wasn't successful, because, as Theresa May pointed out, the EU wasn't flexible at all.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Cameron believed that Britain could prosper within a *reformed* EU, and this is how he pushed the campaign. That's why it wasn't successful, because, as Theresa May pointed out, the EU wasn't flexible at all.
It had more to do with Leave being able to offer pie in the sky, ridiculous bollocks I'd argue.
The bedfellows it created on immigration would certainly be problematic in an everyday environment, however both sides of this coin were constrained by the EU status quo and its political imperatives. Controls on EU immigration and a reduction from its current record high were implicit IMO, although not the mythical 10,000s target of Cameron's. How fair we make it over the medium-longer term is up to us but my aspirations are well enough known. We've read of the stories on here of posters and their relations having to pay exorbitant amounts, and i'd vote to end such if at all possible. FoM might well be an ideological pillar of the European Union, yet it's not the singular expression of a liberal migration policy.
Matters are less problematic when it comes to single market membership. As while it was possible for individual personalities to make our potential access appear overly rosy, even a cursory examination would have told a voter that border controls and repatriation of powers were not consistent with continued membership. Call me harsh, but i would I have little sympathy for protestations of being outright misled. It would have been totally unrealistic (unreasonable as well) to expect an end to FoM, withdrawal from ECJ's jurisdiction, zero annual contributions and unaltered single market privileges.
We'll have to wait and see.
When we look at article 8 of the Lisbon treaty, we read.....
Is there any reason why the EU won't want to have a special relationship with us?
None of these pesky foreigners who are better at your job than you are. All the money for the NHS (pwomise!). Better trade deals, because... reasons.
That post is so wrong in so many ways.
First it has nothing to do with my post but that's okay. And secondly, you highlighted the problem with the UK from start to finish you acted like strangers, as if you weren't part of the "inflexible" EU. Your last bullshittery has been to toy with the EU instead of moving your ass to Brussel and actually try to discuss with your partners, actually try to convince people to see what you wanted to propose.
You never wanted to reform the EU for the EU, your only goal was to exploit EU citizens for your own benefits without compromises. You don't understand the meaning of community.
My dad was admitted to UCH last year and had all of what you listed there. I wouldn't claim it to be uniform across the NHS as a whole, but nor is such unheard of.
So its ok for Vote Leave to deliberately attempt to mislead (as you conceded in your post to Pogue on the last page), but the fault of people who can't, won't, or didn't investigate their claims, for falling for it?
True. If remain had won that would have been the end of it, leavers would have quietly accepte the result and we'd all have lived happily ever after.
I think it had more to do with the term "Real Reforms" and the incredibly stupid decision to let Obama stick his nose in, I think that was the nail in the coffin for remain.
Honest and accurate, no. Although if they believed that then they accepted the concept of no contributions, which further supports our departure from the single market. Naturally, i know a fair few Leave voters, and i can't admit to knowing any who believed that single market membership was a guarantee of the campaign.
Let's be clear though, the Remain did wilfully attempt to mislead the electorate in its own way. Government ministers have pretty well admitted this.
Now that Corbyn has said he will whip the Labour votes for Yes to Article 50, how does this sway his young support base with regards to perception on the Remain/Leave dynamics
Which again is why referendums are bollocks. If the question at hand is highly complex, both sides are telling lies and busy people can't necessarily be bothered to do their own research, what are the odds of an informed and rational decision being reached, right or wrong?
There would have been serious disappointment to be sure, but next-to-no likelihood of another referendum in the years ahead. Many people would have had little choice other than to adopt a pragmatic outlook. Farron wouldn't be calling for a a second referendum that's for damn sure.
You can't possibly know that for sure unless you are Farron himself
Of course Farron wouldn't. Just like Farage isn't now. I almost always disagree with your posts but they aren't usually as pointless as that.
There would be little prospect of another vote, but loud calls for one. Especially if it had been close.
On more than one occasion Farron has described Leave voters generally as intolerant, insular and lacked decency. His MPs have also committed to voting against A50 long before May's speech. He has only disdain for people such as myself, for all that we might share other Liberal Democrat policies.
You don't think that the composition of the Commons and its two-thirds support for EU membership makes a rather practical difference? Eurosceptics don't have the numbers to bring about a repeat, whereas those supportive of Brussels could well vote down the final deal. Even though they've lost the referendum, Remain has a political influence that would not be the case if the roles were reversed.
Farage is an unelected showman whose party has an MP in name only much of the time, not what i would consider comparable to the Lib Dems.
If you disagree with almost all of my posts, you must be more conservative and hawkish than i imagined you to be.
On more than one occasion Farron has described Leave voters generally as intolerant, insular and lacked decency. His MPs have also committed to voting against A50 long before May's speech. He has only disdain for people such as myself, for all that we might share other Liberal Democrat policies.
You don't think that the composition of the Commons and its two-thirds support for EU membership makes a rather practical difference? Eurosceptics don't have the numbers to bring about a repeat, whereas those supportive of Brussels could well vote down the final deal. Even though they've lost the referendum, Remain has a political influence that would not be the case if the roles were reversed.
Farage is an unelected showman whose party has an MP in name only much of the time, not what i would consider comparable to the Lib Dems.
If you disagree with almost all of my posts, you must be more conservative and hawkish than i imagined you to be.
Would you have guessed that Corbyn will whip his Labour vote to support Article 50 based on what he said during Brexit vote? Politicians are different animals IMO
Ok well Farage or anyone else, if your side loses you call for another go, it's fairly standard stuff.On more than one occasion Farron has described Leave voters generally as intolerant, insular and lacked decency. His MPs have also committed to voting against A50 long before May's speech. He has only disdain for people such as myself, for all that we might share other Liberal Democrat policies.
You don't think that the composition of the Commons and its two-thirds support for EU membership makes a rather practical difference? Eurosceptics don't have the numbers to bring about a repeat, whereas those supportive of Brussels could well vote down the final deal. Even though they've lost the referendum, Remain has a political influence that would not be the case if the roles were reversed.
Farage is an unelected showman whose party has an MP in name only much of the time, not what i would consider comparable to the Lib Dems.
If you disagree with almost all of my posts, you must be more conservative and hawkish than i imagined you to be.
We won't agree about the possibility of a second referendum and the justification for it. I'm not going to say anything you haven't heard and scoffed at a million times before. But if remain had won it would have been the status quo, there wouldn't be another question to answer. Leaving is different, there are different ways to leave and it is reasonable imo to get approval for whatever route we take. Especially when there was so much confusion about what leaving would mean.
I don't think there'll be another referendum fwiw. And I'm not sure about the poibt of a vote on the final deal either, given it'll be out of our hands by then, as far as I understand. I think we will end up out of the EU. And as I said earlier I think that's the least undesirable outcome at this stage because if we stay in I think it'll do terminal damage to our democracy.
On this specific point, it does make some difference, which I think is only right given we have a parliamentary democracy.
On the subject of Leave campaigners misleading voters as to the implications of Brexit, this is pretty damning.
For starters, constantly quoting Hannan is not pretty damning. Most people on the leave side were a little confused where he stood. He was against a tight control of free movement, and believed there could be a compromise.
Secondly, the UK will definitely have access to the single market, as this is the only way to trading with EU countries. The issue is at what cost. The UK already meets EU regulations, and so we're all waiting to find out what the EU will agree to in order to for us to continue trading with EU countries, and for them to trade with us.
That happened in 1975. Since then much of our sovereignty was signed away, which meant action was needed to get it back. The public have acted.
Using that logic, the US and China also "have access to the single market". Which is clearly not what anyone in the video was implying how things would pan out.
What I said was not wrong. Cameron was campaigning for a *reformed* EU. Even he understood that there needed to be some flexibility from the EU.
This doesn't make what I said wrong. Your response was vague.
No. With migration at record levels, the UK was/is feeling the strain to such a degree that there has to be some flexibility, but there wasn't.
There's a lot of confusion about the term 'access to the single market'. What it really means is free access to the single market, countries won't just stop trading as some seem to think, as per previous poster there will be access, just the terms will change.
I don't think we'll be able to trade with them as a single block without a (special ?) deal. Maybe we would have to negotiate deals with all the EU states individually ? If that's the case, how many parliaments would that be with the right to veto deals - 40 ? In which case, all the standardisation rules and regulations might be different. A bureaucratic night mare, perhaps ?
Hannan took the view that free access to the single market was possible with a compromise over free movement being the likely outcome. Farage (and most of everyone else) argued that access to the single market isn't currently free to us anyway due to the extortionate fee we have to pay for our membership, and that it was unlikely that we would have to pay high tariff fees, as this would hurt the economy of EU countries as much as us, seeing as we are one of the main importers.
What flexibility do you want, you can expel anyone that costs you money?
EU states can't do separate deals. They sign over that right. However in exchange the collective weight of the EU means they get better terms than they would alone. In signing a deal the parties agree to use one set of standards, which is the EUs as they are the bigger party
Migration is not a burden on this nation.
And the rules make sure that it cannot be a burden, you just have to apply them.
Even a lot remainers would disagree with you there. Housing, schools, hospitals etc are affected by record levels of migration. Even Cameron desperately tried to negotiate with the EU to give us more control. Theresa May vowed to do it as home secretary, because she saw the impact of migration, but she failed. To say that migration is not a problem, is to bury your head in the sand.
The migration that leaving the UK will restrict is the sort that earns the country a fortune. Refugee type migration might even get worse. Why would EU nations want to stop refugees leaving the EU for Britain?
So you have people from the EU that doesn't contribute to the expenses?
They are far more affected by deliberate under investment, which has nothing to do with the EU.
Well someone has to build, maintain and work in them.
They mean free trade I think. People believed we would get a free trade deal with Europe. We wont, at least not in the short term.