In message , at 09:54:57 on Thu, 14 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:

I think they thought "leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to
leave".

Only a small percentage are claiming that

It only takes 2% (swing).

Top reason for voting "leave" (49%) was to regain local control of
lawmaking, second (33%) was "regaining control of the borders" and third
(only 13%) was "dislike expansion of EU and its powers".

lordashcroftpolls.com
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:54:57 on Thu, 14 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
I didn't see the picture, so what?

I did see all the media coverage of it

how does that make me out of touch?

As I said before - one picture is worth 1000 words, and you are
clearly vastly underestimating its impact on the vote.

You have proof of that statement do you?

No, I thought not - you made it up.

I don't believe for one minute that one poster that was shown for one
day made a significant impact on the result.

It wasn't just one poster, although the press launch just had one on
show. And it was all over the media and the biggest story of the day
until Jo Cox got murdered.

--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:20:09 -0000 (UTC), bob put finger
to keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA. The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal (membership
carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we then go for
EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can negotiate a
suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or whether the
only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted "leave"
we're under the impression these were the things they were voting to get
rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

EEA membership requires acceptance of the "four freedoms", including
freedom of movement, across the whole of EFTA and the EU. EFTA membership
alone doesn't. Switzerland has a bilateral treaty with the EU which
includes freedom of movement, but it would be possible not to have it.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

On 14 Jul 2016 21:16:32 GMT, Jeremy Double put
finger to keyboard and typed:

bob wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA. The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal (membership
carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we then go for
EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can negotiate a
suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or whether the
only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted "leave"
we're under the impression these were the things they were voting to get
rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

On the other hand, you only need a few of those who voted leave to be in
favour of EEA or EFTA membership to give an overall majority in favour of
such membership (given the reasonable assumption that those who voted
remain would be in favour of EEA or EFTA membership as the next best thing
to EU membership).

Yes, I think that's a reasonable assumption. Given the narrowness of the
vote to leave the EU, it's quite likely that in a second vote where the two
options are in or out of the EEA, then in would win.

I also think that there would be a strong preference for EFTA membership
even among Leave voters. In many respects, EFTA is what a lot of Leavers
think the EEC should have remained - a simple free trade bloc that doesn't
involve any form of political union - rather than mutating into the EU.
There's a not entirely fanciful belief that, with the UK taking a strong
lead (we would easily be the most populous and richest EFTA member), EFTA
could attract some other EU countries to jump ship and join us, leaving the
rump EU as the future United States of Europe surrounded by a set of other
independent countries of which the UK would be the most significant.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

Mark Goodge wrote:
On 14 Jul 2016 21:16:32 GMT, Jeremy Double put
finger to keyboard and typed:

bob wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA. The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal (membership
carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we then go for
EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can negotiate a
suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or whether the
only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted "leave"
we're under the impression these were the things they were voting to get
rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

On the other hand, you only need a few of those who voted leave to be in
favour of EEA or EFTA membership to give an overall majority in favour of
such membership (given the reasonable assumption that those who voted
remain would be in favour of EEA or EFTA membership as the next best thing
to EU membership).

Yes, I think that's a reasonable assumption. Given the narrowness of the
vote to leave the EU, it's quite likely that in a second vote where the two
options are in or out of the EEA, then in would win.

I also think that there would be a strong preference for EFTA membership
even among Leave voters. In many respects, EFTA is what a lot of Leavers
think the EEC should have remained - a simple free trade bloc that doesn't
involve any form of political union - rather than mutating into the EU.
There's a not entirely fanciful belief that, with the UK taking a strong
lead (we would easily be the most populous and richest EFTA member), EFTA
could attract some other EU countries to jump ship and join us, leaving the
rump EU as the future United States of Europe surrounded by a set of other
independent countries of which the UK would be the most significant.

I'm sure you're right, which is exactly why the career Eurocrats would
fight tooth and nail to oppose it.

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
house.net...
I also think that there would be a strong preference for EFTA membership
even among Leave voters. In many respects, EFTA is what a lot of Leavers
think the EEC should have remained - a simple free trade bloc that doesn't
involve any form of political union - rather than mutating into the EU.
There's a not entirely fanciful belief that, with the UK taking a strong
lead (we would easily be the most populous and richest EFTA member), EFTA
could attract some other EU countries to jump ship and join us, leaving
the
rump EU as the future United States of Europe surrounded by a set of other
independent countries of which the UK would be the most significant.

Yes. I passionately believe that the UK should remain part of Europe and
should continue to sell to and buy from them. But I also passionately
believe that the EU, in the form into which it has now mutated, is
dictatorial and looks after its own aims to become a United States of Europe
instead of democratically looking after the interests of its member states.
It also should have remained a union of Western European countries and
should not have allowed in the poorer Eastern European countries who are now
at the centre of the "economic migration to the UK" problems.

I want us to be able to trade with our European neighbours. But I also want
us to have absolute control of our borders so we can limit the numbers of
non-UK people that we allow in and can also stipulate where they come from
and what skills they have.

I would love to see the situation you suggest: many EU countries leaving the
EU to join the trade-but-without-political-union EFTA, causing the EU to
disappear up its own orifice.

bob writes:

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted "leave"
we're under the impression these were the things they were voting to get
rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

But all we voted for was in/out. It was well known before the referendum
vote that should the vote be out, that the terms under which we leave
the EU and any subsequent negotiations with both the EU and the rest of
the world were unknown. Basically the vote to leave was a leap into the
unknown.

d writes:

Not to mention the dire warnings about the collapse of the pound. Which has
gone down a bit , but nothing like what some were suggesting. Also ironically
Osborne only last year was suggesting that perhaps it would be good if the
pound did drop to aid exports. That god he's gone, useless plank.

Did the dire warnings about the collapse of the pound indicate that this
would happen as a consequence of the leave vote or as consequence of
actually leaving? As many others pointed out, irrespective of the vote
the UK will remain a member of the EU for at least 2 years and until we
actually leave we will continue to enjoy the benefits, and endure the
downsides, of EU membership.

In message , at 10:12:20 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
A recent opinion poll showed about 2 supporting remaining in the single
market

so why did they vote to leave then?

what have they gained if we just sign straight back up to the single
market paying in 250 million pounds per week (and getting no subsidies
back)

Nothing. That's the tragedy.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
12:15:00 on Fri, 15 Jul 2016, NY remarked:
I want us to be able to trade with our European neighbours. But I also
want us to have absolute control of our borders so we can limit the
numbers of non-UK people that we allow in and can also stipulate where
they come from and what skills they have.

Good luck with that. The EU won't stand for it because it'll make more
countries leave.
--
Roland Perry