Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
And can you disprove it? That we would have gotten a good deal had we remained?

A simple observation: the EU's inability to see any reason to reform after the EUref result proves quite a lot - and none of it good.

Another simple observation: I rather think that parliament's inability to reconcile the result also means that there would be any attempt from theUK to change anything had theEUref gone the other way.

A simple conclusion: Had the EUref resulted in a vote to remain then the EU and teh UK would have breathed a sigh of affirmative satisfaction and vindication that the EU was obviously perfect and no change or revision was required.
 
And can you disprove it? That we would have gotten a good deal had we remained?
Funny you should ask that because the expensive Cameron leaflet also says that no other country has managed to secure significant accesss to the single market without having to : follow EU rules over which they have no real say, pay into the EU and accept EU citizens living and working in their country.

It seems the UK public did not consider these things a good enough deal to remain in the EU.
 
Funny you should ask that because the expensive Cameron leaflet also says that no other country has managed to secure significant accesss to the single market without having to : follow EU rules over which they have no real say, pay into the EU and accept EU citizens living and working in their country.

It seems the UK public did not consider these things a good enough deal to remain in the EU.

Or perhaps Boris and Gove and Farage managed to convince the public not to believe David Cameron's leaflet - only to find-out 4 years later that he was right all along?
 
Or perhaps Boris and Gove and Farage managed to convince the public not to believe David Cameron's leaflet - only to find-out 4 years later that he was right all along?

Oddly - China seems to have quite significant access to the EU single market.

Seems to be on quite advantageous terms too - as the EU runs a substantial trade deficit with China.
 
Or perhaps Boris and Gove and Farage managed to convince the public not to believe David Cameron's leaflet - only to find-out 4 years later that he was right all along?
No i think most people instinctively know the EU are a bunch of wrong uns.
 
No i think most people instinctively know the EU are a bunch of wrong uns.

I still favour my explanation, but I guess this will remain a matter of personal opinion.
 
Quote from Dave Camerons expensive leaflet ...."no other country has managed to secure significant accesss to the single market without having to follow EU rules over which they have no real say".

And some people thought... yeah that is fine, i love having no real say in how my country is run. Thankfully it was the minority.
 
Or perhaps Boris and Gove and Farage managed to convince the public not to believe David Cameron's leaflet - only to find-out 4 years later that he was right all along?
I doubt the general public read any leaflets .. they voted on gut instinct and were guided by their heart
 
Quote from Dave Camerons expensive leaflet ...."no other country has managed to secure significant accesss to the single market without having to follow EU rules over which they have no real say".

And some people thought... yeah that is fine, i love having no real say in how my country is run. Thankfully it was the minority.


Come-on, you know exactly what the leaflet actually said...

David Cameron's very valid point was that once we leave the EU, we'll be bound by the trade treaty to follow EU rules over which we will have no say because we will no longer be an EU-member state.

What David Cameron said was that the only way for us to have a say on EU rules is by remaining a member state.

And looking at where we are now, it seems that he was a wise man but we foolishly chose to heed his warning, and thus ended-up 4 years later in the unenviable position of having to choose between accepting a trade deal and EU rules without having a say on them (as David Cameron rightly predicted), or leaving without a trade deal while trying to convince everyone that this is somehow a victory.

I'll look-up David Cameron's leaflet now, I forgot how relevant it still is.
 
Come-on, you know exactly what the leaflet actually said...

David Cameron's very valid point was that once we leave the EU, we'll be bound by the trade treaty to follow EU rules over which we will have no say because we will no longer be an EU-member state.

What David Cameron said was that the only way for us to have a say on EU rules is by remaining a member state.

And looking at where we are now, it seems that he was a wise man but we foolishly chose to heed his warning, and thus ended-up 4 years later in the unenviable position of having to choose between accepting a trade deal and EU rules without having a say on them (as David Cameron rightly predicted), or leaving without a trade deal while trying to convince everyone that this is somehow a victory.

I'll look-up David Cameron's leaflet now, I forgot how relevant it still is.
I have to say Mark that your comenrts are somewhat missing the vital point here on why Leave was successful.

Cameron'a "prediction" was fairly obvious surely?

Everyone knew that once we left we would have no direct influence with the EU (although our level of influence was always less than might be assumed), the point for many is that, more importantly, the EU would have no further influence on the UK when we left.

You are working from an assumption that any trade deal we strike will come with EU influence, unless you are party to any agreed terms (that currently do not seem to be agreed) I fail to see how your point stands.

If a deal is reached that does not denote failure of Brexit, quite the opposite.

Leave won because a majority of people in the UK had lost trust in the EU. Its continued push toward a federal state, the way it selected and placed its most senior members into unelected positions, the lack of any audited accounts, the failed fiscal policies (Greece being a prime example), the cronyism etc etc had all undermined trust.
 
Interesting proclaimations by Comrade Hancock made this morning.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

The World Health Organisations Michael Ryan confirmed that the WHO is “aware of this variant,” explaining that the mutations of viruses are “quite common.”

His WHO colleague, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, added that the variant identified by Hancock is the ‘N501Y’ mutation, which scientists have been studying since the early months of the pandemic.
 
Interesting proclaimations by Comrade Hancock made this morning.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

The World Health Organisations Michael Ryan confirmed that the WHO is “aware of this variant,” explaining that the mutations of viruses are “quite common.”

His WHO colleague, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, added that the variant identified by Hancock is the ‘N501Y’ mutation, which scientists have been studying since the early months of the pandemic.

OK, but what exactly is the issue here?

Apart for Matt Hancock coming across as being out if his depth, which I accept.

Prof Vallance did say that the variant was seen before in Europe, BTW.
 
The issue for me is yet again the government are deliberately scaremongering on the back of very little evidence. All they really know for sure is that cases and hospital admissions are rising. That I can accept and who could be surprised given the way some people are behaving in towns and cities. I just wish they would leave out the fairy story about the big bad wolf variant which has been around for many months already. It will actually frighten some people to a serious degree.
 
OK, but what exactly is the issue here?

Apart for Matt Hancock coming across as being out if his depth, which I accept.

Prof Vallance did say that the variant was seen before in Europe, BTW.
Many European countries are or have imposed similar restrictions at short notice.

I don't see those being reported in negative terms

Our Government (and it must be remembered that the other 3 devolved Governments all signed up to this) tried to put in place a plan to allow some normality over Christmas within defined guidelines.

Was that wise? Possibly not but the intent was certainly not malicious.

The full information regarding the very rapid spread of a variant took time to accurately collate and came after all UK Governments had agreed on a plan

Once that new information was checked and agreed there was no option but to change plans at short notice
 
I have to say Mark that your comenrts are somewhat missing the vital point here on why Leave was successful.

Cameron'a "prediction" was fairly obvious surely?

Everyone knew that once we left we would have no direct influence with the EU (although our level of influence was always less than might be assumed), the point for many is that, more importantly, the EU would have no further influence on the UK when we left.

You are working from an assumption that any trade deal we strike will come with EU influence, unless you are party to any agreed terms (that currently do not seem to be agreed) I fail to see how your point stands.

If a deal is reached that does not denote failure of Brexit, quite the opposite.

Leave won because a majority of people in the UK had lost trust in the EU. Its continued push toward a federal state, the way it selected and placed its most senior members into unelected positions, the lack of any audited accounts, the failed fiscal policies (Greece being a prime example), the cronyism etc etc had all undermined trust.

I would suggest that you correctly described why the majority of Leave voters voted they way they did, but not the majority of UK voters.

As I pointed-out, the Leave vote was won on the back of 700,000 voters (or there abouts), or put differently, if 700,000 Leave voters would have voted Remain instead, there would be no Brexit.

My point was that it's not unreasonable to assume that the number of voters who voted Leave, but would not have done so if they knew that it will end up in a hard-Brexit/no-deal/WTO, is greater than this tiny number of voters that were needed to get the Leave vote over the finishing line.

Of course there's no way to quantify it or prove this, so it will forever remain a rant, but what I ask is that at least you acknowledge that it's feasible that this is what happened.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest that you correctly described why the majority of Leave voters voted they way they did, but not the majority of UK voters.

As I pointed-out, the Leave vote was won on the back of 700,000 voters (or there abouts), or put differently, if 700,000 Leave voters would have voted Remain instead, there would be no Brexit.

My point was that it's not unreasonable to assume that the number of Remain voters who voted Leave, but would not have done so if they knew that it will end up in a hard-Brexit/no-deal/WTO, is greater than this tiny number of voters that were needed to get the Leave vote over the finishing line.

Of course there's no way to quantify it or prove this, so it will forever remain a rant, but what I ask is that at least you acknowledge that it's feasible that this is what happened.
Mark.

Your argument works both ways.

I am unsure about your comment "the number of Remain voters who voted Leave". That seems somewhat of a contradiction?

I would also take up against your suggestion that 700000 is a "tiny number"

I feel quite confident that if the result was reversed then no one on the Remain side would use such a term.

Also, trying to guess how people's views would have changed if they knew the outcome (which is still unknown regardless of what agreement is reached) is nothing more than a hypothetical argument.

Again I can only refer to my own sample group of friends who wanted to leave.

All, without exception, had formed this view before any campaign begun, before Cameron draughted his document, before any spurious promises had been made and before project fear etc muddied the waters of debate.

All of my friends (again possibly you may argue not a reprisentitive cross section) were of the opinion that the EU was undemocraticly. pushing for a Europe under one central control and that was fundamentally unacceptable to them and that was the driving force in wishing to leave.

Yes we knew the possibility of some hits to the economy short term but many EU member states (Greece!) have hardly been immune from this either.

The future either way is guesswork but independently we have more chance of shaping it to suit than being one of a large bloc where policy is generally agreed by the largest and most powerful members.

.
 
Last edited:
I am unsure about your comment "the number of Remain voters who voted Leave". That seems somewhat of a contradiction?

It was a typo, now corrected, thanks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom