None of those 8 points were on the ballot paper, which, IMO, makes the result dubious at the very best. If things get as far as having a negotiated Brexit deal then at the very least there has to be a full parliamentary vote on it &, preferably, a second referendum i.e. one with actual facts (call it a manifesto if you like) to make a decision over.
1 Like
Several are speculative and would be subject to veto if it ever came to it. We will not regain âfull controlâ of our armed forces because of our NATO and UN commitments, in fact did the EU even have any influence over the deployment of our forces anyway?
Ironically the Brexit vote demonstrated that we were and remain a sovereign nation but this is akin to testing all the matches in the box before use.
The government could not control non-EU immigration and failed to limit immigration from the A8 countries when it had the chance. Apart from the fact that no-one now wants to come and work in this demonstrably xenophobic nation what makes you think the government will be any better at âcontrolling our bordersâ than it was before?
The âmillions of poundsâ per week were a small percentage of our total GDP and âboughtâ us much more in terms of trade benefits.
Yes, we are free to make trade deals with anyone who wants to, but as an unequal partner with most of the nations that really count (US, China, Japan and the EU itself). In practice - whatever the headline generating promises - most nations will want to see how Brexit works out before wanting substantive talks with us, because they will want to know how much of our gateway status we will retain (probably none with predictable consequences).
On the other hand Iâve never seen Party Manifesto Promises on the Ballot Paper for a General Election, so perhaps that makes the result of those dubious as well ? 
Pretty much; well, they are just dubious - I donât think they need any help.
There is some research somewhere that suggests if you ask people to vote for individual policy points the Liberals win hands down.
Neither of which alters the fact that the referendum put the cart before the horse in that no discussion, debate, research, position papers or anything which would have allowed the GBP to really understand what they were voting for was carried out before the vote. Thus the campaign was fought with rhetoric and lies by both sides but Leave managed to tap into a mother lode of xenophobia and came up trumps.
Cameron thought he could not possibly loose. To be honest I think that the Brexiters thought that they could not win either - the result was a complete surprise to both sides.
As a consequence we are still trying to figure out exactly how to handle the current situation - not helped by the weak position May finds herself in (another spectacular âshoot oneself in the headâ moment cooked up by the Tory party).
Just a couple of points Paul.
Firstly, itâs not really the case that the UK Govât âcould notâ control non-EU immigration, but rather that they âchoseâ not to do so for whatever reason.
Secondly, I didnât say that the UK will âregainâ full control of the Armed Forces, but rather that the UK will âkeepâ that control. This is a reference to the view held in certain areas of the EU that there should be a âEuropean Defence Forceâ created at a future time.
Overall, it is no doubt a matter of personal opinion as to whether it would be better or not for the UK to become more and more involved in european convergence and unification. I simply donât believe that the citizenry of the UK is ready for that yet. Itâs not a matter of xenophobia, but rather one of a different heritage and history that sets our island nation somewhat apart from the rest of mainland europe.
Now there we are in complete agreement.
OK, bad terminology on my part, though the phrase is commonly used to mean that âxâ wasnât in a published manifesto. The real point is that there were no manifestos on either side in the referendum, just rhetoric & lies (you can choose which side to apply those things to).
âA different heritage and history that sets our island nation somewhat apart from mainland Europeâ.
Try telling that to the Romans, Danes, Anglos, Saxons and Normans let alone the shipwrecked Spanish and French sailors who stayed and the vast number of modern Europeans have moved there. More like a melting pot than an individual race.
1 Like
The Tories promised several times to reduce it to the 10âs of 1000âs but failed - were they lying or incompetent?
Iâll agree that it is a matter of personal opinion but we are a European people by both heritage and history, the Monarch that you want to reign supreme over the British isles is German for goodness sake and we owe our modern language to the influence of Norman French on old English. You cannot escape European influences on British life, culture, history, language, genes or anything else you care to think about.
1 Like
I wonder ------ am I allowed to reply âProbably bothâ 
in this forum ?
Prior to the 12th century I would agree with you. However I think we have established a few unique national traits since the last time that England was successfully conquered back in 1066.
Really?
Actually I had always thought that her mother was Scottish, being the daughter of the 14th Earl of Strathmore etc.
Indeed.
In fact our differences of opinion with our European cousins have actually led England to have been at war with virtually all of them at one time or another over the last 950 years.
To be fair Lizzie is no more German on a day-to-day basis than I am but presumably, had it not been politically expedient to change the surname to Windsor at the beginning of the 20th century, they would still be the Saxe-Coburgs. Let us not also forget that Philip brings Greek blood into the mix for his heirs. The point is that our âBritishâ royal family has a good bit of European blood in there.
As to wars we have fought with our European cousins over the last 950 years - surely most of those have been the results of disputes over power, territory or religion amongst a very small cadre of individuals, typically those very royal families we were talking about above.
I live in a part of France that was under English rule for a considerable length of time. At least one of the English monarchs of that time rarely spent time in âhis ownâ country and could not even speak the same language as his subjects. Your idea is a nice little story to convince people how unique and different the British were to any of other Europeans until they joined the Common Market. Itâs so far from the truth itâs a joke. I spent a large chunk of my life living in Germany. Holland was very close, Belgium less than a half hour drive away and France not too far either. The individual character of each of those separate countries was obvious the moment you crossed a border. The EU had done nothing to dilute what made them different to their neighbours with a different history. The only area I know that is a bit confused, even more than the German speaking communities in Belgium, is Alsace where the whole place seems to suffer from having a split personality and ends up being neither French nor German.
Being a member of the EU and benefitting from its trading power and protections does not stop an individual country standing apart from the rest in terms of its way of life or traditions.
2 Likes
David Martin is absolutely correct. The whole problem with this argument is, it might be valid if the rest of Europe had in fact lost all its national culture and character. But it hasnât. The national culture and national identity in France are very strong and the countryâs laws and the way itâs governed recognise and reflect this. Macron himself said the other day that the French are a nation that doesnât like change, âitâs the way weâre madeâ. The French are very French and always will be (I hope). Ditto the Germans, ditto the Italians, Spaniards, Greeks⌠They donât need to jump up and down and say âbut we are unique, we have our own history and heritageâ - everyone can see it. Would it be fair to say that within Europe itâs the only UK, or certain sectors of it, that for some reason seems to have lost its sense of national identity, and protesteth too much in its attempts to convince itself and everyone else that it hasnât. And the reasons for this problem canât be directly to do with the EU, otherwise other EU states would be having the same problem. Theyâre to do with Britain having become a fragmented and damaged society. Whether it would at present be less fragmented and damaged if weâd never joined the EU is impossible to say, and whether the rifts will heal after Brexit remains to be seen.
4 Likes
This very vocal call for preserving our âheritageâ just seems to me to be bandwagon jumping by nationalists. As you say, Anna, no one else seems to be decrying the loss of what makes them the nation they are.
What I will say is that much of UK culture has been subsumed by American culture - hardly the EUâs fault.
3 Likes
Personally I think part of the problem is how materialistic the UK has become over the last few decades, but that may just be a hobby horse of mine and I donât expect everyone to agree. But, itâs easy to lose your âvaluesâ and your soul if you make money your god. Whatâs that quote about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing? Whoever said it was a wise man, I think.
I certainly think that knowing the price of our contributions to the EU but not the value that we derived from them was a significant factor in the referendum.
1 Like