Luxor4u

These remoaners keep squirming like a snake on a spike, they love to convince themselves that their minority view will overturn the majorities wishes to leave the EU, so they split as many hairs as they can come up with to enforce their minority view on the rest of the people who got off their backsides and actually voted instead of lying in bed and then moaning about the result, everyone had a vote and the majority won even with a sizeable proportion who only voted to remain because of another agenda as in the case of Scotland and NI. I often wonder if they would have been so enthusiastic about why the vote was not legitimate had it been the other way around and we elected to stay? It is actually quite amusing to watch their futile antics, a bit like spoiled children who cannot get their own way and throw their toys away in a tantrum. I am looking forwards to mocking them all when article 50 is finally enacted despite their blocking tactics and tantrums.

But this latest move isn't about not leaving EU....but about whether, having done so, we should at least consider staying in the single market.

Whilst many Brexiteers may have wanted, and perhaps thought, that a vote for leaving EU meant leaving the single market....it didn't. That was not the Referendum question.

And perhaps even actioning Clause 50 doesn't automatically take us out of the single market. Another legal point for the courts to consider.

"Act in haste...repent at leisure". Never were truer words said regarding the decision to have a yes/no referendum on a complex issue ....distilled into a question, the ramifications of which were vague and poorly understood.

Never were truer words said regarding the decision to have a yes/no referendum on a complex issue ....distilled into a question, the ramifications of which were vague and poorly understood.

But that same rational also applies to the logic of those that voted to remain, did they realise the longer term ramifications of staying in?
"Jump before you are pushed" is another that springs to mind.

I don't imagine anyone knew the long term ramifications of staying in...any more than they knew the ramifications of leaving!

Personally, I'd be relaxed about leaving EU if we stay within the single market....which will almost certainly mean no controls over immigration from EU. I don't accept the argument from some that uncontrolled EU immigration is the source of all our problems and I believe the price to pay for having complete control is too great.

But that is just my view.

Unfortunately, the public were not asked to address this point specifically. It was left unsaid amongst a question far too general to have a sensible yes/no answer.

And that, in a nutshell, is why large sections of the public, and politicians, are at loggerheads now. Neither side has a demonstrable mandate on the key questions underlying leaving EU.

It's like having a referendum on abolishing the monarchy - yes/no - without any consideration of what, if anything, you would put in it's place by way of constitutional reform.

I would agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I would disagree that immigration (uncontrolled) was not an issue for most people. It all stems from the EU’s intransigence in dealing with the problem when Ca-moron raised it with the likes of Junkers. The free movement of workers within the EU is not actually a founding principle, rather it has become accepted as ‘a nice to have’ that everyone else adheres to, yet more creeping control by unelected leaders. Had the likes of Junkers, Tusk and Merkel only realised the concern by many Brits that we were being overrun with migrants had a real basis and then tried to ameliorate the situation by not being so dogmatic about free movement and allowed us some more protection, then I do not think the result would have been to leave. Even now those unelected leaders are still trying to make things difficult by refusing to have pre-Brexit talks, talks that could easily lead to a more amicable settlement all round, such as agreeing that all foreign nationals currently in UK and EU would retain their current status. It is quite obvious that the likes of Junkers and Tusk want us to suffer if at all possible for our temerity in leaving this organisation, so the sooner we leave the better as we will get nowhere with dealing with those people so a clean break is the only option. Once we are out then we can see who comes to trade and who does not, what will be will be.

I never suggested

that immigration (uncontrolled) was not an issue for most people

It clearly was...especially after Farage's "rivers of blood" - type hyperbole, echoed by that slimy git Gove.

How much of an issue....we'll never know, unless there's another referendum on the terms of exit (unlikely) or if MP's have a say (which is, at least, possible).

As you say....what will be, will be.

The devil is in the detail.

About 60% of UK exports and imports are with the EU. A 10% tariff would have a serious effect on UK employment. How many Brits know/knew at the time/know now how reliant the UK is on trade with the EU and how small trade is with China, India, the US, Canada and the 'Empire'?

There is an argument that UK trade has ignored the growth markets of South America and Asia for the easy pickings of trade with the EU, but thinking that the UK can turn this around and grow this new trade in the short term seems naive. For example, May's recent trip to India was a trade fiasco with nothing to show for it - except opportunities for the City (maybe) and Indians aggrieved at no loosening on (I think) study type visas/backpacker type working visas for Indians. Even the Indians want free/freerer human movement.

Even an India deal might be bad news for the jobs starved Brexit-voting provinces, but probably good for the city/service industries/high skilled jobs. The same would probably be true for any deal with, say, China or Brazil with possible job destruction for the lower skill Brexit voting regions.

In any event a Trump/Farage world might be a protectionist world which would be bad for UK free trade aspirations. A UK trade deal with the US seems impossible for 4 years at least.

A very recent interview with the Malta PM was illuminating. Obviously Commonwealth ties count for little because he said, in his role as EU supremo in waiting, that a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK without the 'nasties' was not possible.

Innumerate idiots, like Boris, talk glowingly of possibilities with Australia, NZ and the like. Australia counts for about 1% of UK exports so even massive short term growth isn't going to amount to much.

Prior to EU entry UK trade with its 'Empire' was much greater but all this changed (and very much to our disadvantage). Its now odd that the UK is revisiting those who were damaged by its earlier decision. Saying that 'we' have now changed out mind because we didn't like the consequences of EU membership. Maybe that same argument could be used by Brexit voters: we didn't understand what we were doing and we want to change our mind because the likely consequences will be negative.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/ A brilliant Brazilian website which uses clever visuals to simply illustrate international trade.

Hafiz

Where did you find that "mantra"?

So now, Saturday we now know Why we are leaving Europe, that place over the Chanel, thats 'The English Channel.
Sounds really quite complicated, I just thought we hate the French, loved the Germans, passed Belgium and never visited Estonia..
Getting to like the 'Two ends of the same bar, Jeremy Corbin and Jacob Rees-Mogg (now my mate, big-nose's best mate)
Politics ? love to hate it....
Ps: For those that won't be listening to England lose to Sweden tune into Johnny Mac on http://www.camglenradio.org
I'll be listening to the footy..
Pss: A Dr writes 'I once caught puis de pubise in Paris, I was 19....

Too much information Doctor.

2 - 0 to England and only 10 minutes left

Though a lot can happen in 10 minutes

Sometimes just sometimes I love being wrong!......
"Hello Moscow!
Ps: How come America has the World series and only America competes ? and they play football/soccar but don't
get into the World Cup that's World with a capital W....
Pss: Brexit means Brexit.....

Oooh! aah! seems like the Russkies wanted us to leave the EU as well, not daft them Russians.....
Ps: 'keep your eyes on Nicks' new mate, the Honorable Jacob R-M, he's needs a 'bit of arty farty 'rough...
Pss: "Brexit means Brexit" goddit ?

Who2 wrote: Ps: 'keep your eyes on Nicks' new mate, the Honorable Jacob R-M, he's needs a 'bit of arty farty 'rough...
]

I think he's more than happy with his current wife (mother of his 5 - at last count - kids).....and, more importantly, the multi-million granddaughter of the last Earl Fitzwilliam.

Bit of rough indeed....

Fitzwilliam eh? So he's married to a a decendant of a right royal ******* so to speak

I would love to comment here, but will not. .

newcastle wrote:

Who2 wrote: Ps: 'keep your eyes on Nicks' new mate, the Honorable Jacob R-M, he's needs a 'bit of arty farty 'rough...
]

I think he's more than happy with his current wife (mother of his 5 - at last count - kids).....and, more importantly, the multi-million granddaughter of the last Earl Fitzwilliam.

Bit of rough indeed....

I was talking in the sense of a 'mate rather than the usual sexual connotations, the world doesn't all condone LGBT or TRGB or even BGTR,
weirdo's is a far easier description.....

Horus wrote:Fitzwilliam eh? So he's married to a a decendant of a right royal ******* so to speak

Nope. No royal descent for the Fitzwilliams.

They came over in 1066 with that well known barsteward William of Normandy