That has been said repeatedly. But not that much has been said of the Remains campaign to cover up the convergence strategy of the EU countries. Only Gisela Stuart maintained that attack during the referendum debate. Brexit is so complicated that there is NO ONE that can tell you the full facts about it - basically because there are so many moving parts it is unpredictable. So in other words ........ don’t just repeat what tha’s heard ont tele !!!
You seem to be confirming that the original vote was not based on truthful representations. As for your conspiracy theory about 'convergence strategies' the UK position would have guarded against any further integration due to our veto.
We're well on our way to a best of 5 General Elections. Odd how GE's can be called as often as it suits the Tories..... but a ratifying referendum.... oh no, the people cant be trusted with such a thing.
For that to happen a further extension would be required. A referendum will take longer to organise and campaign for ect than that.
Surely it would be in EU interest to allow another one if based along lines of Remain win, we withdraw notice, if Brexit wins we leave on set terms, than the continual charade we are in at the moment
The problem with another referendum is that the same people from both sides who lied to you to protect their own interests on the build up to the last one would do the same again.
Yes it would. So if we stayed in we would be actually seen as being half in half out anyway. As Gisela Stuart said several times during the EU Referendum - the status quo is not on the ballot paper.
Yes I'm sure if we had a change of government and another referendum they would agree to a extension.
Gisela Stewart was wrong. A remain vote would have left us in on the same terms. So would a withdrawal of the article 50 notice even now. Our existing half in, half out position is the best of all worlds. We keep the trade links, we have a vote and a veto on various aspects of further integration. We retain environmental and worker protections, and we fully participate in all relevant decision-making. We also avoid over-reliance on future deals with China or the USA where we would be much the smaller and the more disadvantaged party. To give up all this for some phoney notion of 'sovereignty' is a monumental act of self-harm.
I was only replying in jest but I think it was supposed to read "... , the shouty libdem, Arlene Foster, ...". Having said that I'm not sure who the shouty libdem is. Jo Swinson's not particularly shouty, is she? It's a puzzler.
Half in half out is the worst. We become less and less influential in the EU - our opinions are not listened to. We continue to pour more and more £££BILLIONS into the EU. Our borders are open so we don’t know who or how many people are flooding into the country - so our infrastructure becomes overloaded. We cannot make trade deals with up and coming countries - especially Commonwealth countries. We are seen as a beacon of democracy throughout the world. We come part of an homologised soup and lose our British identity - the world loses its beacon of democracy.
Identity! Total cr4p! I can be Barnsley, Yorkshire, British and European all at the same time! How do you think the Germans, French and Spanish feel? Your unspecific comment about contributions while ignoring the direct and indirect economic benefits of membership are barely worth debating, in my view.
