On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:50:36 +0000
Richard wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:59:27 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders", which
a slim majority voted for?

A slim majority of those who could be bothered to vote, indeed. Much

I'm getting a bit tired of this argument. It was a MINORITY of those who
bothered to vote who voted remain. So what? Given how easy it was to vote
then its pretty clear people who didn't bothered didn't give a damn one way
or the other so their opinions - if they even have one - are irrelevant.

less than 50% of the population, who in any case weren't asked which
aspect of leaving the EU was most important to them, nor were they
given any options. Cameron's gross negligence.

What does the aspect matter, its in or out, there's no halfway house as
brussels has made clear. And I know its trendy for remoaners to blame cameron
but I'd like to shake his hand. Its about the only useful thing he did during
his whole term.

--
Spud

On 2017-02-01 11:07:29 +0000, d said:

I'm getting a bit tired of this argument. It was a MINORITY of those who
bothered to vote who voted remain. So what? Given how easy it was to vote
then its pretty clear people who didn't bothered didn't give a damn one way
or the other so their opinions - if they even have one - are irrelevant.

I agree; it is not possible to consider abstention as anything other
than either "don't care" or "do not wish to engage", in either case it
signifies indifference to the outcome.

What does the aspect matter, its in or out, there's no halfway house as
brussels has made clear.

EEA and EFTA membership will be an option (they are not "membership of
the EU"), and at least some Brexiters will have preferred that. It
would only take 4.00000001% of the overall vote to have voted "out" but
preferred one of those for there to be no mandate for total withdrawal.

For that reason, I think the referendum should have had two questions:-

1. Do you wish the UK to leave the EU or remain in it on the same basis
as it is currently a member?

2. If the outcome of the first question is to leave the EU, would you
prefer (a) to withdraw completely, (b) to remain in the European
Economic Area, (c) to remain in the European Free Trade Area?

Now it might have been Leave and (a) - there's a fair chance it would
have been. But at least what was happening would have a clear mandate.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message , at 12:36:24 on Wed, 1 Feb
2017, Neil Williams remarked:

I'm getting a bit tired of this argument. It was a MINORITY of those who
bothered to vote who voted remain. So what? Given how easy it was to vote
then its pretty clear people who didn't bothered didn't give a damn one way
or the other so their opinions - if they even have one - are irrelevant.

I agree; it is not possible to consider abstention as anything other
than either "don't care" or "do not wish to engage", in either case it
signifies indifference to the outcome.

What does the aspect matter, its in or out, there's no halfway house as
brussels has made clear.

EEA and EFTA membership will be an option (they are not "membership of
the EU")

This is flogging the dead horse of "Norway solution", "Switzerland
solution", "Singapore solution", none of which tick enough of the
Brexiter's boxes.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:36:24 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2017-02-01 11:07:29 +0000, d said:

I'm getting a bit tired of this argument. It was a MINORITY of those who
bothered to vote who voted remain. So what? Given how easy it was to vote
then its pretty clear people who didn't bothered didn't give a damn one way
or the other so their opinions - if they even have one - are irrelevant.

I agree; it is not possible to consider abstention as anything other
than either "don't care" or "do not wish to engage", in either case it
signifies indifference to the outcome.

What does the aspect matter, its in or out, there's no halfway house as
brussels has made clear.

EEA and EFTA membership will be an option (they are not "membership of
the EU"), and at least some Brexiters will have preferred that. It
would only take 4.00000001% of the overall vote to have voted "out" but
preferred one of those for there to be no mandate for total withdrawal.

For that reason, I think the referendum should have had two questions:-

1. Do you wish the UK to leave the EU or remain in it on the same basis
as it is currently a member?

2. If the outcome of the first question is to leave the EU, would you
prefer (a) to withdraw completely, (b) to remain in the European
Economic Area, (c) to remain in the European Free Trade Area?

Now it might have been Leave and (a) - there's a fair chance it would
have been. But at least what was happening would have a clear mandate.

I think that question is far too erudite for the largely apolitical UK
electorate, many of whom barely knew a referendum was happening at
all. And the many who just wanted fewer immigrants wouldn't have known
which of the three 'Leave' options they preferred.

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:36:24 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-01 11:07:29 +0000, d said:
What does the aspect matter, its in or out, there's no halfway house as
brussels has made clear.

EEA and EFTA membership will be an option (they are not "membership of
the EU"), and at least some Brexiters will have preferred that. It
would only take 4.00000001% of the overall vote to have voted "out" but
preferred one of those for there to be no mandate for total withdrawal.

Well I have heard on the radio more than once that legally we could remain
inside the EFTA but still leave the EU since the former was a seperate
agreement. But of course that would no doubt tie up lawyers on both sides of
the channel in knots for years delaying Brexit almost indefinately which would
be even worse from an economic uncertainty point of view than either leave
or remain.

For that reason, I think the referendum should have had two questions:-

1. Do you wish the UK to leave the EU or remain in it on the same basis
as it is currently a member?

2. If the outcome of the first question is to leave the EU, would you
prefer (a) to withdraw completely, (b) to remain in the European
Economic Area, (c) to remain in the European Free Trade Area?

Now it might have been Leave and (a) - there's a fair chance it would
have been. But at least what was happening would have a clear mandate.

As Recliner said, too complex. And even these choices could no doubt have
details which could be argued over in turn for ever and a day.

--
Spud

In message , at 13:47:35 on Wed, 1 Feb
2017, d remarked:

I have heard on the radio more than once that legally we could remain
inside the EFTA but still leave the EU since the former was a seperate
agreement.

EFTA is Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. Down in the
noise level.

And most informed opinion says Norway would veto us joining.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 11:07:29 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:50:36 +0000
Richard wrote:
A slim majority of those who could be bothered to vote, indeed. Much

I'm getting a bit tired of this argument. It was a MINORITY of those who
bothered to vote who voted remain. So what? Given how easy it was to vote
then its pretty clear people who didn't bothered didn't give a damn one way
or the other so their opinions - if they even have one - are irrelevant.

The result of the vote is unavoidable, I agree, but it's still not
clear what people wanted: single market or not would have been the
obvious 'leave' options.

The process leading up to the vote was a farce with gross exaggeration
on one side and lies on the other.

less than 50% of the population, who in any case weren't asked which
aspect of leaving the EU was most important to them, nor were they
given any options. Cameron's gross negligence.

What does the aspect matter, its in or out, there's no halfway house as
brussels has made clear. And I know its trendy for remoaners to blame cameron
but I'd like to shake his hand. Its about the only useful thing he did during
his whole term.

I blame him because I think the referendum was staged simply to
resolve an internal party matter and it didn't go his way.

Richard.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 14:33:21 +0000
Richard wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 11:07:29 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
What does the aspect matter, its in or out, there's no halfway house as
brussels has made clear. And I know its trendy for remoaners to blame cameron
but I'd like to shake his hand. Its about the only useful thing he did during
his whole term.

I blame him because I think the referendum was staged simply to
resolve an internal party matter and it didn't go his way.

Who cares what his reasons were. He did something millions had been waiting
for for decades.

--
Spud

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:47:35 on Wed, 1 Feb 2017,
d remarked:

I have heard on the radio more than once that legally we could remain
inside the EFTA but still leave the EU since the former was a seperate
agreement.

EFTA is Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. Down in the noise
level.

Membership of EFTA requires remaining in the SM with FoM with Liechtenstein,
(presumably due to it insignificant size) having an exemption


And most informed opinion says Norway would veto us joining.

Why?

It doesn't do anything as "a block" that our size would dominate

In message , at 16:35:18 on Wed, 1 Feb 2017,
tim... remarked:
I have heard on the radio more than once that legally we could remain
inside the EFTA but still leave the EU since the former was a seperate
agreement.

EFTA is Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. Down in the
noise level.

Membership of EFTA requires remaining in the SM with FoM

So not really a Brexit at all.

with Liechtenstein, (presumably due to it insignificant size) having an
exemption


And most informed opinion says Norway would veto us joining.

Why?

It doesn't do anything as "a block" that our size would dominate

Allegedly Norway thinks we would (dominate).
--
Roland Perry