4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Maybe back then. But now?

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/

But now we're out. I'd love to see the demographic details of these 1797 respondents.

Just now, nauseus said:

But now we're out. I'd love to see the demographic details of these 1797 respondents.

More fake poll insinuations.

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The result of the referendum itself proved that it was something that the majority of Britons wanted - they were far more aware of what the European project was really about than they were in the 1970's. 

I'll play the pedant here. The majority of the electorate who could be bothered to vote, voted to leave. Nevertheless, you are correct. The result of the referendum was clear: The UK should leave the EU.

 

However, were the majority of Britons better informed about the EU than they were in the '70s? Questionable. And if they were, was the information that they were provided with factually correct? Highly debatable?

 

In any event, I doubt that many people  - Leave or Remain - foresaw the type of deal that would be signed or its' effects.  This leads to a number of questions.

 

Would those in NI who voted 'Leave', do so now given the problems that have been created/(re)surfaced there? Would a 'Leave' voting Scottish loyalist have voted that way if s/he had realised that this would increase support, and lend a certain amount of legitimacy, to calls for another Scottish referendum?

 

All hypothetical questions of course, and any answers are pure conjecture but I have my doubts.

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

I'll play the pedant here. The majority of the electorate who could be bothered to vote, voted to leave. Nevertheless, you are correct. The result of the referendum was clear: The UK should leave the EU.

 

However, were the majority of Britons better informed about the EU than they were in the '70s? Questionable. And if they were, was the information that they were provided with factually correct? Highly debatable?

 

In any event, I doubt that many people  - Leave or Remain - foresaw the type of deal that would be signed or its' effects.  This leads to a number of questions.

 

Would those in NI who voted 'Leave', do so now given the problems that have been created/(re)surfaced there? Would a 'Leave' voting Scottish loyalist have voted that way if s/he had realised that this would increase support, and lend a certain amount of legitimacy, to calls for another Scottish referendum?

 

All hypothetical questions of course, and any answers are pure conjecture but I have my doubts.

Britons had had nearly 50 years of EEC/EU membership experience to learn about it for themselves. Of course they were better informed. 

 

The withdrawal agreement and 'deal' was poor because it was basically dictated by the EU and May let them do it. The Lisbon Treaty did not detail all the rules and conditions that came up during the so-called "negotiations"  - typical EU - the NI Unionists weren't expecting such difficulty either. Scottish loyalists know that staying in the EU would give Scotland far less independence in the long-term.

 

 

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Britons had had nearly 50 years of EEC/EU membership experience to learn about it for themselves. Of course they were better informed. 

Which basically consisted of the right wing press falsely stating that the EU forced rules on the unwilling UK when, in reality, up until the referendum the UK had to enact only 3% of EU legislation against its' wishes. I'd hardly call that better informed.

 

(Please don't ask for a link. I have supplied it numerous times in the past. You should be able to find it somewhere on fullfacts.org).

 

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The withdrawal agreement and 'deal' was poor because it was basically dictated by the EU and May let them do it.

It is almost invariably the case that the senior partner in a bi-lateral negotiation dictates the process and outcome, so it was no surprise that the EU dictated matters. Not much May could have done about it (even if she could have dealt with the back-stabbing ERG members in her own party).

 

You didn't fall for that old claptrap about the EU needing us more than we need them, did you?

 

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The Lisbon Treaty did not detail all the rules and conditions that came up during the so-called "negotiations"  - typical EU -

Probably because it didn't foresee a member state being stupid enough to want to leave. 

 

Why "typical EU"?

 

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

the NI Unionists weren't expecting such difficulty either.

The NI unionists were more than happy when they held the balance of power. They were also victims of May's ill-judged gamble to call an election. They probably knew that Johnson and the ERG would have no qualms about throwing them under a bus when the need arose.

 

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Scottish loyalists know that staying in the EU would give Scotland far less independence in the long-term.

 

 

Completely disagree. The main concern of the Scottish loyalists is to remain part of the UK. If that meant staying in the EU then so be it. In 10 years time, there is the distinct possibility that a Scottish loyalist may find him/herself part of an independent Scotland within the EU. If so, it will be at least, partly due to the result of the vote to leave (the EU) and the subsequent deal. No unionist would have voted for that.

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

Which basically consisted of the right wing press falsely stating that the EU forced rules on the unwilling UK when, in reality, up until the referendum the UK had to enact only 3% of EU legislation against its' wishes. I'd hardly call that better informed.

 

(Please don't ask for a link. I have supplied it numerous times in the past. You should be able to find it somewhere on fullfacts.org).

 

It is almost invariably the case that the senior partner in a bi-lateral negotiation dictates the process and outcome, so it was no surprise that the EU dictated matters. Not much May could have done about it (even if she could have dealt with the back-stabbing ERG members in her own party).

 

You didn't fall for that old claptrap about the EU needing us more than we need them, did you?

 

Probably because it didn't foresee a member state being stupid enough to want to leave. 

 

Why "typical EU"?

 

The NI unionists were more than happy when they held the balance of power. They were also victims of May's ill-judged gamble to call an election. They probably knew that Johnson and the ERG would have no qualms about throwing them under a bus when the need arose.

 

Completely disagree. The main concern of the Scottish loyalists is to remain part of the UK. If that meant staying in the EU then so be it. In 10 years time, there is the distinct possibility that a Scottish loyalist may find him/herself part of an independent Scotland within the EU. If so, it will be at least, partly due to the result of the vote to leave (the EU) and the subsequent deal. No unionist would have voted for that.

Nothing to do with the press - don't need links. The treaty doesn't mention senior partners but it does mention the goodwill that we didn't see any of. May was a remainer and so should never have been PM. The notion that Scotland would ultimately stay independent within the EU is amusing.

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Nothing to do with the press - don't need links. The treaty doesn't mention senior partners but it does mention the goodwill that we didn't see any of. May was a remainer and so should never have been PM. The notion that Scotland would ultimately stay independent within the EU is amusing.

Truss was a remainer and so......

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 it does mention the goodwill that we didn't see any of.

Goodwill will only come into play if the partners trust each other. It's hardly surprising that it was/is in short supply given that the UK backtracked - and continues to backtrack - on its commitments.

 

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 The notion that Scotland would ultimately stay independent within the EU is amusing.

Why should this be amusing? 27 other states remain independent within the EU as did the UK when it was a member.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Nothing to do with the press - don't need links. The treaty doesn't mention senior partners but it does mention the goodwill that we didn't see any of. May was a remainer and so should never have been PM. The notion that Scotland would ultimately stay independent within the EU is amusing.

The treaty doesn't mention it, but:

- when UK was a member of the EU, its politicians and civil servants had been participating in several negotiations, meetings, design of treaties (i.e. article 50) etc... so they were quite knowledgeable about the way the EU would deal with such an issue. It was either the common market or third party country status. There was no way UK could get the benefits of the common market without the related constraints and rules.

- no mention of "senior partner" but that's the reality of power unbalance. This is not the world of Care Bears.

 

As usual, Brexit is about blaming others!

5 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

And by that time you'll probably have sent your application for a reentry into the EU.

Not sure I can apply for such a thing. Hang on, I'll check.........no I can't.

1 hour ago, candide said:

The treaty doesn't mention it, but:

- when UK was a member of the EU, its politicians and civil servants had been participating in several negotiations, meetings, design of treaties (i.e. article 50) etc... so they were quite knowledgeable about the way the EU would deal with such an issue. It was either the common market or third party country status. There was no way UK could get the benefits of the common market without the related constraints and rules.

- no mention of "senior partner" but that's the reality of power unbalance. This is not the world of Care Bears.

 

As usual, Brexit is about blaming others!

Article 50 was included in the Lisbon Treaty (the last one of a succession of these). Article 50 was worded so vaguely that there was no warning of the years of pain ahead trying to exit - like pulling a tooth out.

 

The UK was not a founding member of the EEC and had no say in the first Treaty of Rome, where the intended route for the European Project was already hidden away within thousands of pages, with the most critical not fairly explained to the British people when Heath managed to hustle the UK in - Heath lied in 1972, so I blame him.

 

   

11 hours ago, RayC said:

I didn't mention the size of  Johnson's victory because it didn't seem relevant but, yes I agree it was a landside.

 

I also agree that the Labour party's Brexit response was disjointed and that the Lib Dems call for a so-called 'Peoples Vote' was misguided. (I never supported it).

 

However, is the current state of the country what the electorate wants? 

 

I assume that you are a Brexiter and a Tory supporter (apologies if I am wrong). Is the current situation what you envisaged in 2016 (or even 2019)? Are you happy with the current political state of affairs?

I doubt many elections result in what was envisaged, expected or wanted. I speak from experience.

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Article 50 was included in the Lisbon Treaty (the last one of a succession of these). Article 50 was worded so vaguely that there was no warning of the years of pain ahead trying to exit - like pulling a tooth out.

 

The UK was not a founding member of the EEC and had no say in the first Treaty of Rome, where the intended route for the European Project was already hidden away within thousands of pages, with the most critical not fairly explained to the British people when Heath managed to hustle the UK in - Heath lied in 1972, so I blame him.

 

   

Years of pain caused by internal discord and unrealistic claims on the UK side. Kind of mourning period for the irrational expectations raised by the Brexit campaign, before coming back to reality.

The EU position has remained constant over time and was predictable.

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I doubt many elections result in what was envisaged, expected or wanted. I speak from experience.

????That is probably a universal truth????

4 hours ago, candide said:

Years of pain caused by internal discord and unrealistic claims on the UK side. Kind of mourning period for the irrational expectations raised by the Brexit campaign, before coming back to reality.

The EU position has remained constant over time and was predictable.

Any false expectations promised by elements of some of the pro Brexit campaigns were misleading, I agree. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the EU structure with have ignored such promises. If you mean by 'constant' that the EU is a stubborn, unbending, make the rules up to suit as you go mess, then I also agree with you. 

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

Any false expectations promised by elements of some of the pro Brexit campaigns were misleading, I agree. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the EU structure with have ignored such promises.

I don't understand your line of reasoning here. I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first?

 

Are you suggesting that the UK outside of the EU is not free to spend the weekly £350m "savings" on the NHS as promised because the structure of the EU still somehow prevents this even though we are no longer governed by its' regulation? 

 

The Brexit bus message might have lacked validity, but imo it  persuaded a significant number of people to vote 'Leave'.

 

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

If you mean by 'constant' that the EU is a stubborn, unbending, make the rules up to suit as you go mess, then I also agree with you. 

A charge that could equally be levied against the UK government.

 

The truth is that the EU was always going to have the stronger negotiating hand and it played it well (aided, I must be said, by the ineptitude of the UK side). This continues to be the case today.

19 hours ago, RayC said:

ulI don't understand your line of reasoning here. I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first?

 

Are you suggesting that the UK outside of the EU is not free to spend the weekly £350m "savings" on the NHS as promised because the structure of the EU still somehow prevents this even though we are no longer governed by its' regulation? 

 

The Brexit bus message might have lacked validity, but imo it  persuaded a significant number of people to vote 'Leave'.

 

A charge that could equally be levied against the UK government.

 

The truth is that the EU was always going to have the stronger negotiating hand and it played it well (aided, I must be said, by the ineptitude of the UK side). This continues to be the case today.

The truth is that the EU was intent on making the exit for the UK difficult and painful, to discourage other members from even thinking about trying to do the same thing. 

 

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The truth is that the EU was intent on making the exit for the UK difficult and painful, to discourage other members from even thinking about trying to do the same thing. 

 

It was very cruel of the EU to treat the UK only a bit better than it does any other nation that has no special legal ties to the EU.

So unfair!

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

It was very cruel of the EU to treat the UK only a bit better than it does any other nation that has no special legal ties to the EU.

So unfair!

What are you on about now?

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

The truth is that the EU was intent on making the exit for the UK difficult and painful, to discourage other members from even thinking about trying to do the same thing. 

 

"No deal is better than a bad deal" Wasn't that another of the mantras? If the EU was being so unreasonable, why didn't the UK government simply walk away?

 

In any event, it simply confirms that the UK was the junior partner in the negotiations.

 

The fact also remains that the UK government has not spent an extra £250m/ week on the NHS, and that the EU has nothing to do with this non occurrence.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

What are you on about now?

If I understand well, he meant that U.K. has not been treated worse than in other agreements with other countries, and even a bit better (excluding 'common market's types if agreement, as UK did not want to join it on equal terms as other participants, I.e. Norway, etc...).

I see the Brexiteers are still blaming the EU for the UK political chaos.

5 hours ago, RayC said:

"No deal is better than a bad deal" Wasn't that another of the mantras? If the EU was being so unreasonable, why didn't the UK government simply walk away?

 

In any event, it simply confirms that the UK was the junior partner in the negotiations.

 

The fact also remains that the UK government has not spent an extra £250m/ week on the NHS, and that the EU has nothing to do with this non occurrence.

You may have been hypnotized by buses and strange chants but most weren't. 

4 hours ago, candide said:

If I understand well, he meant that U.K. has not been treated worse than in other agreements with other countries, and even a bit better (excluding 'common market's types if agreement, as UK did not want to join it on equal terms as other participants, I.e. Norway, etc...).

Join what?

On 9/21/2022 at 9:51 PM, placeholder said:

Truss was a remainer and so......

And so..... the withdrawal negotiations,  such as they were, are done.

45 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Join what?

Single market or custom union.

5 hours ago, RayC said:

"No deal is better than a bad deal" Wasn't that another of the mantras? If the EU was being so unreasonable, why didn't the UK government simply walk away?

 

In any event, it simply confirms that the UK was the junior partner in the negotiations.

 

The fact also remains that the UK government has not spent an extra £250m/ week on the NHS, and that the EU has nothing to do with this non occurrence.

The UK government should have walked away after 2 years, that's what Article 50 indicates. But of course Article 50 does not highlight all of the the difficulties for any member state trying to extract itself from a maze of conditions and obligations, which have accumulated, altered and amplified so much since joining the EEC in 1973. The succession of treaties and the introduction of the single market, Euro and the customs union resulted in a far more involved commitment than was envisaged and described to the UK public in 1972 and 1975, even though the Treaty of Rome indicated what was to come. Of course the UK could not leave without agreements for financial obligations and the people, at least.

 

After the referendum, it seemed that most MP's (and cabinet ministers) had no clue as to the extent of the level of control that the EU had gained over a, supposedly sovereign UK. The Civil Service kept quiet and had evidently been happy with the status quo for years - the EU saved them a lot of work, so they only started crying after the leave vote - lazy overpaid bums.  

 

8 minutes ago, candide said:

Single market or custom union.

Thanks. If he'd said EFTA I might gave understood. 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

You may have been hypnotized by buses and strange chants but most weren't. 

Clearly I wasn't as (disclosure!!!) I didn't vote 'Leave'. 

 

On the count of '3', you will awaken and realise that you were sold a pup ... 1, 2 ... oh, what the hell, if you are happy to believe in a post-Brexit utopian fantasy world, who am I to interfere?

 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

And so..... the withdrawal negotiations,  such as they were, are done.

Apart from the fact that the UK government wants to reopen them (The Irish Protocol).