European Second Referendum

[Enoch]

Some proponents of a second Brexit referendum argue that the first was problematic because of the huge number of demonstrably false claims made during the course of the campaign.

.
Some proponents of the 'get on and leave' position argue that the thing's been a mash up because of the huge number of demonstrably false claims made by folk that think they know better than the majority of folk what voted in that there referendum.

I reckon the reason things are in the state they currently are is because the PM and her civil servant Robbins were limp-wristed from day one. Had the UK approached negotiations in a positive fashion, most of those 'lies' would have been achieved by now.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Had the UK approached negotiations in a positive fashion, most of those 'lies' would have been achieved by now.

I cannot know whether this is informed opinion or groundless speculation, simce I've been told:

No one can know the true consequences of any action in advance.

[Enoch]

Had the UK approached negotiations in a positive fashion, most of those 'lies' would have been achieved by now.

I cannot know whether this is informed opinion or groundless speculation, simce I've been told:

No one can know the true consequences of any action in advance.

.
Fair cop. I've clearly developed some undesirable affectation from reading too many all knowing posts on football forums!

I shall wear Tango's hair shirt for the rest of the evening.

.

Had the UK approached negotiations in a positive fashion, many of those 'lies' might have been achieved by now.

[Hoboh]

I'm very sympathetic to the argument of "we have to enact what we voted for initially before having a further vote".

And were it the case that we could say 5 years after leaving (GE timeframe) have another guaranteed vote to decide what we do from there - be it stay out, go back in, sever all ties etc...then I would reluctantly say "ok".

The problem is that there is no such guarantee. And re-entry wouldn't even be a guaranteed option open to us even if we overwhelmingly wanted to.

That is why simply leaving and finding out the consequences and hoping we can live with them - on the basis of a vote that was never binding and in which the winning campaign committed illegalities that could have overturned the result of a legally binding vote....is for me just not a credible option. Especially when we consider that currently the only leave option that could pass our parliament is one that less than a 3rd of those who voted from Brexit actually want.

Fcuk me there you go again!
I want out for the following reasons
No ECJ overriding our justice system
People, skilled people who have cast iron guaranteed jobs only allowed in not Bulgarian beggars.
I do not want to be a part of a federalist superstate when the people running it are further away from those that do currently.
And I sure as he'll don't want an EU army that could be involved in cock ups like the Balkans and the Ukraine because of other tools interests.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm very sympathetic to the argument of "we have to enact what we voted for initially before having a further vote".

And were it the case that we could say 5 years after leaving (GE timeframe) have another guaranteed vote to decide what we do from there - be it stay out, go back in, sever all ties etc...then I would reluctantly say "ok".

The problem is that there is no such guarantee. And re-entry wouldn't even be a guaranteed option open to us even if we overwhelmingly wanted to.

That is why simply leaving and finding out the consequences and hoping we can live with them - on the basis of a vote that was never binding and in which the winning campaign committed illegalities that could have overturned the result of a legally binding vote....is for me just not a credible option. Especially when we consider that currently the only leave option that could pass our parliament is one that less than a 3rd of those who voted from Brexit actually want.

Fcuk me there you go again!
I want out for the following reasons
No ECJ overriding our justice system
People, skilled people who have cast iron guaranteed jobs only allowed in not Bulgarian beggars.
I do not want to be a part of a federalist superstate when the people running it are further away from those that do currently.
And I sure as he'll don't want an EU army that could be involved in cock ups like the Balkans and the Ukraine because of other tools interests.

Not really sure how that clashes with what I said. You have a choice - May's deal or extend A50 - currently these are the only two options parliament will in reality pick from - which do you want?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The data they received to help make up their minds were a tissue of lies from both sides, so they had to vote for the most appealing lie. Democracy really requires an informed electorate, and yours has been sadly misinformed.

Go on, which tissue of lies was I fed about the 'ever greater union's of a basically non democratic supra-national organisation that is ruled by gravy train politics?

As you note it is none of my business (though I do hold an EU passport). My comments are based on the news we receive. From both sides there have been many exposés of demonstrably false pre-referendum claims. For example, the Independent wrote:

Some proponents of a second Brexit referendum argue that the first was problematic because of the huge number of demonstrably false claims made during the course of the campaign.
Here are some of the most notorious and patently false claims made by both sides of the debate.

1
‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market’ – Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan
This claim, repeated by economically liberal Brexiteers, was demonstrably false – Theresa May has now committed to taking the UK out of the single market, a point explicitly repeated on Friday by Downing Street.

Following the referendum Oliver Norgrove, a former Vote Leave staffer, who supports staying in the single market, urged people to check the official campaign’s website and official literature – noting that the things they had campaigned for were “utterly achievable in the EEA and make no mention at all of leaving the single market”.
2
‘Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week’ – Boris Johnson

The claim by the Leave campaign that the UK would take back control of “roughly £350m a week” was derided by the UK Statistics Authority as “a clear misuse of official statistics”. The problem with the notorious £350m figure is that it is a “gross” figure – it doesn’t take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU. It also doesn’t take into account Britain’s rebate on top of that.
When those are taken into account the figure is £250m, but debate over the money also had a bigger flaw – the effect on the UK’s public finances from depressed economic growth caused by leaving the single market is expected to dwarf any saving made from ending the UK’s subscription to the EU budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that even a 0.1 per cent fall in growth over the next 50 years would see tax receipts £36bn lower.Thus, the impression that leaving the EU would somehow save money or lessen austerity is likely to be a false one.
3
‘We will need an emergency Budget to restore stability to public finances’ – George Osborne

George Osborne’s predicted “emergency Budget” full of tax rises and spending cuts after the Brexit vote never materialised – the Treasury has broadly stuck to Mr Osborne’s economic plans on spending from before the vote. It also has no significant plans to raise taxes or cut spending when Britain actually leaves the EU in March 2019.

It could be argued that Mr Osborne never had the opportunity to implement his emergency Budget, because he was replaced by Philip Hammond. But ignoring the fact that the two chancellors are from the same party and both campaigned for Remain, Mr Osborne did have nearly a month in office after the 2016 referendum, suggesting it wasn’t that much of an emergency.

4
‘The UK loses out because other members favour a highly regulated and protectionist economy’ – Jacob Rees-Mogg

The claim that the UK is constantly being overruled by other EU countries is false. Research by UK in a changing Europe shows that the UK has been in a minority on 57 legislative acts at the European Council since 1999, when the decisions were made public. Since then it has been in the majority on 2,474 acts, and abstained on 70 occasions.

Separate research by VoteWatch shows a shifting pattern in votes between 2004-2009 and 2009-2015, however – with the UK becoming the government most likely to vote against the majority in the second period. But even taking that data into account, the UK is still on the winning side 87 per cent of the time and far from being isolated, has consistent allies like Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania and Greece that back it on the vast majority of votes.

5
‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’ – Alan Johnson

This claim by the Remain campaign was based on outdated data by the Centre of Economics and Business Research (CEBR). The consultancy has since revised the figures: it says the figure is more likely to be around 17 per cent.

The problem with the original figure was that the Remain campaign compared the total number of manufacturing jobs, 2.55 million, with the 1.7 million jobs the CEBR had said were dependent both directly and indirectly on EU trade, including in other industries. The two figures are not comparable so the two-thirds number was wrong.

6
‘Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU’ – Vote Leave publicity

Though Turkey has been an official EU candidate state since 1999, talks have long stalled and there is no prospect of the country joining the bloc anytime soon.

The European Parliament officially voted in favour of suspending negotiations just months after the EU referendum, on the basis of human rights abuses – while the European Council has said it will open talks in no new areas.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also since said Turkey will never become an EU member, effectively blocking any accession. Turkish President Erdogan’s constitutional referendum has effectively sealed the deal.

You will note, because basically you are an intelligent person, that apart from the last of the 'supposedly false claims' quoted (i.e. the Turkish Question), that they ALL revolve around economics. I have been quite absolutely clear throughout any debate that my opposition to EU membership is founded on two principles: Sovereignty; And not being peripheral to a core of countries who have monetary unity without fiscal unity.
You will not be surprised therefore, that I dismiss those 'false claims' with a mere "pah!".
You have failed to demonstrate even one reason why the vote I cast was based on lies I was fed.

[BWFC_Insane]

The data they received to help make up their minds were a tissue of lies from both sides, so they had to vote for the most appealing lie. Democracy really requires an informed electorate, and yours has been sadly misinformed.

Go on, which tissue of lies was I fed about the 'ever greater union's of a basically non democratic supra-national organisation that is ruled by gravy train politics?

As you note it is none of my business (though I do hold an EU passport). My comments are based on the news we receive. From both sides there have been many exposés of demonstrably false pre-referendum claims. For example, the Independent wrote:

Some proponents of a second Brexit referendum argue that the first was problematic because of the huge number of demonstrably false claims made during the course of the campaign.
Here are some of the most notorious and patently false claims made by both sides of the debate.

1
‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market’ – Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan
This claim, repeated by economically liberal Brexiteers, was demonstrably false – Theresa May has now committed to taking the UK out of the single market, a point explicitly repeated on Friday by Downing Street.

Following the referendum Oliver Norgrove, a former Vote Leave staffer, who supports staying in the single market, urged people to check the official campaign’s website and official literature – noting that the things they had campaigned for were “utterly achievable in the EEA and make no mention at all of leaving the single market”.
2
‘Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week’ – Boris Johnson

The claim by the Leave campaign that the UK would take back control of “roughly £350m a week” was derided by the UK Statistics Authority as “a clear misuse of official statistics”. The problem with the notorious £350m figure is that it is a “gross” figure – it doesn’t take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU. It also doesn’t take into account Britain’s rebate on top of that.
When those are taken into account the figure is £250m, but debate over the money also had a bigger flaw – the effect on the UK’s public finances from depressed economic growth caused by leaving the single market is expected to dwarf any saving made from ending the UK’s subscription to the EU budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that even a 0.1 per cent fall in growth over the next 50 years would see tax receipts £36bn lower.Thus, the impression that leaving the EU would somehow save money or lessen austerity is likely to be a false one.
3
‘We will need an emergency Budget to restore stability to public finances’ – George Osborne

George Osborne’s predicted “emergency Budget” full of tax rises and spending cuts after the Brexit vote never materialised – the Treasury has broadly stuck to Mr Osborne’s economic plans on spending from before the vote. It also has no significant plans to raise taxes or cut spending when Britain actually leaves the EU in March 2019.

It could be argued that Mr Osborne never had the opportunity to implement his emergency Budget, because he was replaced by Philip Hammond. But ignoring the fact that the two chancellors are from the same party and both campaigned for Remain, Mr Osborne did have nearly a month in office after the 2016 referendum, suggesting it wasn’t that much of an emergency.

4
‘The UK loses out because other members favour a highly regulated and protectionist economy’ – Jacob Rees-Mogg

The claim that the UK is constantly being overruled by other EU countries is false. Research by UK in a changing Europe shows that the UK has been in a minority on 57 legislative acts at the European Council since 1999, when the decisions were made public. Since then it has been in the majority on 2,474 acts, and abstained on 70 occasions.

Separate research by VoteWatch shows a shifting pattern in votes between 2004-2009 and 2009-2015, however – with the UK becoming the government most likely to vote against the majority in the second period. But even taking that data into account, the UK is still on the winning side 87 per cent of the time and far from being isolated, has consistent allies like Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania and Greece that back it on the vast majority of votes.

5
‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’ – Alan Johnson

This claim by the Remain campaign was based on outdated data by the Centre of Economics and Business Research (CEBR). The consultancy has since revised the figures: it says the figure is more likely to be around 17 per cent.

The problem with the original figure was that the Remain campaign compared the total number of manufacturing jobs, 2.55 million, with the 1.7 million jobs the CEBR had said were dependent both directly and indirectly on EU trade, including in other industries. The two figures are not comparable so the two-thirds number was wrong.

6
‘Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU’ – Vote Leave publicity

Though Turkey has been an official EU candidate state since 1999, talks have long stalled and there is no prospect of the country joining the bloc anytime soon.

The European Parliament officially voted in favour of suspending negotiations just months after the EU referendum, on the basis of human rights abuses – while the European Council has said it will open talks in no new areas.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also since said Turkey will never become an EU member, effectively blocking any accession. Turkish President Erdogan’s constitutional referendum has effectively sealed the deal.

You will note, because basically you are an intelligent person, that apart from the last of the 'supposedly false claims' quoted (i.e. the Turkish Question), that they ALL revolve around economics. I have been quite absolutely clear throughout any debate that my opposition to EU membership is founded on two principles: Sovereignty; And not being peripheral to a core of countries who have monetary unity without fiscal unity.
You will not be surprised therefore, that I dismiss those 'false claims' with a mere "pah!".
You have failed to demonstrate even one reason why the vote I cast was based on lies I was fed.

One might say that voting on the basis of sovereignty is a lie in itself...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The data they received to help make up their minds were a tissue of lies from both sides, so they had to vote for the most appealing lie. Democracy really requires an informed electorate, and yours has been sadly misinformed.

Go on, which tissue of lies was I fed about the 'ever greater union's of a basically non democratic supra-national organisation that is ruled by gravy train politics?

As you note it is none of my business (though I do hold an EU passport). My comments are based on the news we receive. From both sides there have been many exposés of demonstrably false pre-referendum claims. For example, the Independent wrote:

Some proponents of a second Brexit referendum argue that the first was problematic because of the huge number of demonstrably false claims made during the course of the campaign.
Here are some of the most notorious and patently false claims made by both sides of the debate.

1
‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market’ – Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan
This claim, repeated by economically liberal Brexiteers, was demonstrably false – Theresa May has now committed to taking the UK out of the single market, a point explicitly repeated on Friday by Downing Street.

Following the referendum Oliver Norgrove, a former Vote Leave staffer, who supports staying in the single market, urged people to check the official campaign’s website and official literature – noting that the things they had campaigned for were “utterly achievable in the EEA and make no mention at all of leaving the single market”.
2
‘Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week’ – Boris Johnson

The claim by the Leave campaign that the UK would take back control of “roughly £350m a week” was derided by the UK Statistics Authority as “a clear misuse of official statistics”. The problem with the notorious £350m figure is that it is a “gross” figure – it doesn’t take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU. It also doesn’t take into account Britain’s rebate on top of that.
When those are taken into account the figure is £250m, but debate over the money also had a bigger flaw – the effect on the UK’s public finances from depressed economic growth caused by leaving the single market is expected to dwarf any saving made from ending the UK’s subscription to the EU budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that even a 0.1 per cent fall in growth over the next 50 years would see tax receipts £36bn lower.Thus, the impression that leaving the EU would somehow save money or lessen austerity is likely to be a false one.
3
‘We will need an emergency Budget to restore stability to public finances’ – George Osborne

George Osborne’s predicted “emergency Budget” full of tax rises and spending cuts after the Brexit vote never materialised – the Treasury has broadly stuck to Mr Osborne’s economic plans on spending from before the vote. It also has no significant plans to raise taxes or cut spending when Britain actually leaves the EU in March 2019.

It could be argued that Mr Osborne never had the opportunity to implement his emergency Budget, because he was replaced by Philip Hammond. But ignoring the fact that the two chancellors are from the same party and both campaigned for Remain, Mr Osborne did have nearly a month in office after the 2016 referendum, suggesting it wasn’t that much of an emergency.

4
‘The UK loses out because other members favour a highly regulated and protectionist economy’ – Jacob Rees-Mogg

The claim that the UK is constantly being overruled by other EU countries is false. Research by UK in a changing Europe shows that the UK has been in a minority on 57 legislative acts at the European Council since 1999, when the decisions were made public. Since then it has been in the majority on 2,474 acts, and abstained on 70 occasions.

Separate research by VoteWatch shows a shifting pattern in votes between 2004-2009 and 2009-2015, however – with the UK becoming the government most likely to vote against the majority in the second period. But even taking that data into account, the UK is still on the winning side 87 per cent of the time and far from being isolated, has consistent allies like Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania and Greece that back it on the vast majority of votes.

5
‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’ – Alan Johnson

This claim by the Remain campaign was based on outdated data by the Centre of Economics and Business Research (CEBR). The consultancy has since revised the figures: it says the figure is more likely to be around 17 per cent.

The problem with the original figure was that the Remain campaign compared the total number of manufacturing jobs, 2.55 million, with the 1.7 million jobs the CEBR had said were dependent both directly and indirectly on EU trade, including in other industries. The two figures are not comparable so the two-thirds number was wrong.

6
‘Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU’ – Vote Leave publicity

Though Turkey has been an official EU candidate state since 1999, talks have long stalled and there is no prospect of the country joining the bloc anytime soon.

The European Parliament officially voted in favour of suspending negotiations just months after the EU referendum, on the basis of human rights abuses – while the European Council has said it will open talks in no new areas.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also since said Turkey will never become an EU member, effectively blocking any accession. Turkish President Erdogan’s constitutional referendum has effectively sealed the deal.

You will note, because basically you are an intelligent person, that apart from the last of the 'supposedly false claims' quoted (i.e. the Turkish Question), that they ALL revolve around economics. I have been quite absolutely clear throughout any debate that my opposition to EU membership is founded on two principles: Sovereignty; And not being peripheral to a core of countries who have monetary unity without fiscal unity.
You will not be surprised therefore, that I dismiss those 'false claims' with a mere "pah!".
You have failed to demonstrate even one reason why the vote I cast was based on lies I was fed.

One might say that voting on the basis of sovereignty is a lie in itself...

Really? Please do tell?

[BWFC_Insane]

The data they received to help make up their minds were a tissue of lies from both sides, so they had to vote for the most appealing lie. Democracy really requires an informed electorate, and yours has been sadly misinformed.

Go on, which tissue of lies was I fed about the 'ever greater union's of a basically non democratic supra-national organisation that is ruled by gravy train politics?

As you note it is none of my business (though I do hold an EU passport). My comments are based on the news we receive. From both sides there have been many exposés of demonstrably false pre-referendum claims. For example, the Independent wrote:

Some proponents of a second Brexit referendum argue that the first was problematic because of the huge number of demonstrably false claims made during the course of the campaign.
Here are some of the most notorious and patently false claims made by both sides of the debate.

1
‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market’ – Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan
This claim, repeated by economically liberal Brexiteers, was demonstrably false – Theresa May has now committed to taking the UK out of the single market, a point explicitly repeated on Friday by Downing Street.

Following the referendum Oliver Norgrove, a former Vote Leave staffer, who supports staying in the single market, urged people to check the official campaign’s website and official literature – noting that the things they had campaigned for were “utterly achievable in the EEA and make no mention at all of leaving the single market”.
2
‘Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week’ – Boris Johnson

The claim by the Leave campaign that the UK would take back control of “roughly £350m a week” was derided by the UK Statistics Authority as “a clear misuse of official statistics”. The problem with the notorious £350m figure is that it is a “gross” figure – it doesn’t take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU. It also doesn’t take into account Britain’s rebate on top of that.
When those are taken into account the figure is £250m, but debate over the money also had a bigger flaw – the effect on the UK’s public finances from depressed economic growth caused by leaving the single market is expected to dwarf any saving made from ending the UK’s subscription to the EU budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that even a 0.1 per cent fall in growth over the next 50 years would see tax receipts £36bn lower.Thus, the impression that leaving the EU would somehow save money or lessen austerity is likely to be a false one.
3
‘We will need an emergency Budget to restore stability to public finances’ – George Osborne

George Osborne’s predicted “emergency Budget” full of tax rises and spending cuts after the Brexit vote never materialised – the Treasury has broadly stuck to Mr Osborne’s economic plans on spending from before the vote. It also has no significant plans to raise taxes or cut spending when Britain actually leaves the EU in March 2019.

It could be argued that Mr Osborne never had the opportunity to implement his emergency Budget, because he was replaced by Philip Hammond. But ignoring the fact that the two chancellors are from the same party and both campaigned for Remain, Mr Osborne did have nearly a month in office after the 2016 referendum, suggesting it wasn’t that much of an emergency.

4
‘The UK loses out because other members favour a highly regulated and protectionist economy’ – Jacob Rees-Mogg

The claim that the UK is constantly being overruled by other EU countries is false. Research by UK in a changing Europe shows that the UK has been in a minority on 57 legislative acts at the European Council since 1999, when the decisions were made public. Since then it has been in the majority on 2,474 acts, and abstained on 70 occasions.

Separate research by VoteWatch shows a shifting pattern in votes between 2004-2009 and 2009-2015, however – with the UK becoming the government most likely to vote against the majority in the second period. But even taking that data into account, the UK is still on the winning side 87 per cent of the time and far from being isolated, has consistent allies like Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania and Greece that back it on the vast majority of votes.

5
‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’ – Alan Johnson

This claim by the Remain campaign was based on outdated data by the Centre of Economics and Business Research (CEBR). The consultancy has since revised the figures: it says the figure is more likely to be around 17 per cent.

The problem with the original figure was that the Remain campaign compared the total number of manufacturing jobs, 2.55 million, with the 1.7 million jobs the CEBR had said were dependent both directly and indirectly on EU trade, including in other industries. The two figures are not comparable so the two-thirds number was wrong.

6
‘Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU’ – Vote Leave publicity

Though Turkey has been an official EU candidate state since 1999, talks have long stalled and there is no prospect of the country joining the bloc anytime soon.

The European Parliament officially voted in favour of suspending negotiations just months after the EU referendum, on the basis of human rights abuses – while the European Council has said it will open talks in no new areas.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also since said Turkey will never become an EU member, effectively blocking any accession. Turkish President Erdogan’s constitutional referendum has effectively sealed the deal.

You will note, because basically you are an intelligent person, that apart from the last of the 'supposedly false claims' quoted (i.e. the Turkish Question), that they ALL revolve around economics. I have been quite absolutely clear throughout any debate that my opposition to EU membership is founded on two principles: Sovereignty; And not being peripheral to a core of countries who have monetary unity without fiscal unity.
You will not be surprised therefore, that I dismiss those 'false claims' with a mere "pah!".
You have failed to demonstrate even one reason why the vote I cast was based on lies I was fed.

One might say that voting on the basis of sovereignty is a lie in itself...

Really? Please do tell?

We were sovereign as things were....its not even a matter of opinion either.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^^^

I'd have a word with the Catalans and Scots if I were you. You could include the Welsh and the Northern Irish. You could expand that to the Irish. Then you could start questioning the English as to whether they felt they had a proportional say in the UK...
After that you could start to question what it was/is that we do/don't have a say in. We could start with the Eurozone demanding we help with bailing out the Greek crisis. We could continue with fishing rights in our own waters, and go on to EU demands that unelected EU ambassadors have more priority than National ambassadors (which only Trump's America has rescinded)...

After that we could talk about NATO v EU Army, and the "Ever Increasing Union". I'll stop there for the moment. Let you digest that...

I'll then point out that EU treaty Law has primacy over member state law.
That happened because as a sovereign state we ceded our sovereignty by an act of parliament.
Therefore to wrest that power back is a question of Sovereignty.

And that isn't a matter of opinion either. Which makes your statement a lie.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'd have a word with the Catalans and Scots if I were you. You could include the Welsh and the Northern Irish. You could expand that to the Irish. Then you could start questioning the English as to whether they felt they had a proportional say in the UK...
After that you could start to question what it was/is that we do/don't have a say in. We could start with the Eurozone demanding we help with bailing out the Greek crisis. We could continue with fishing rights in our own waters, and go on to EU demands that unelected EU ambassadors have more priority than National ambassadors (which only Trump's America has rescinded)...

After that we could talk about NATO v EU Army, and the "Ever Increasing Union". I'll stop there for the moment. Let you digest that...

None of that is relevant to sovereignty.

As May has said repeatedly there will be many points of international law and standards that we will still be subject to after leaving.

Our parliament still had complete sovereign power by any definition of the word sovereign. If it didn't like the rules of the EU club (that we were part of forming said rules) then they could exercise said sovereignty by deciding to leave.

As has been said by May many times over - when we leave we will still be subject to international laws and standards - that doesn't mean we aren't sovereign. If we sign a Free trade deal with someone we will be subject to rules within it. That doesn't mean we aren't sovereign.

Scotland is not sovereign as whilst it can make some of its own laws - it cannot make ALL of them - AND - they cannot self determine their exit from the union.

Clear distinction.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'd have a word with the Catalans and Scots if I were you. You could include the Welsh and the Northern Irish. You could expand that to the Irish. Then you could start questioning the English as to whether they felt they had a proportional say in the UK...
After that you could start to question what it was/is that we do/don't have a say in. We could start with the Eurozone demanding we help with bailing out the Greek crisis. We could continue with fishing rights in our own waters, and go on to EU demands that unelected EU ambassadors have more priority than National ambassadors (which only Trump's America has rescinded)...

After that we could talk about NATO v EU Army, and the "Ever Increasing Union". I'll stop there for the moment. Let you digest that...

None of that is relevant to sovereignty.

As May has said repeatedly there will be many points of international law and standards that we will still be subject to after leaving.

Our parliament still had complete sovereign power by any definition of the word sovereign. If it didn't like the rules of the EU club (that we were part of forming said rules) then they could exercise said sovereignty by deciding to leave.

As has been said by May many times over - when we leave we will still be subject to international laws and standards - that doesn't mean we aren't sovereign. If we sign a Free trade deal with someone we will be subject to rules within it. That doesn't mean we aren't sovereign.

Scotland is not sovereign as whilst it can make some of its own laws - it cannot make ALL of them - AND - they cannot self determine their exit from the union.

Clear distinction.

You didn't bother to read what I wrote:

EU Treaty Law has primacy over UK Law, because we, by an Act of Parliament, joined the forerunner of the EU. In order to wrest that primacy back, we need to leave the EU. That is not an opinion. It is Fact.
THEREFORE IT IS A MATTER OF SOVEREIGNTY.

[Enoch]

... and the Spanish government blinks first!

The Spanish cabinet has passed a package allowing Brits to continue living there, as now, if the UK should leave the EU without a deal. This in direct conflict with the EU's earlier statement where they rejected calls for such an agreement, stating they would "not negotiate mini deals".

I guess the Spanish exchequer can't face losing all that Sterling. Who'd a thunk it!

[Montreal Wanderer]

You will note, because basically you are an intelligent person, that apart from the last of the 'supposedly false claims' quoted (i.e. the Turkish Question), that they ALL revolve around economics. I have been quite absolutely clear throughout any debate that my opposition to EU membership is founded on two principles: Sovereignty; And not being peripheral to a core of countries who have monetary unity without fiscal unity.
You will not be surprised therefore, that I dismiss those 'false claims' with a mere "pah!".
You have failed to demonstrate even one reason why the vote I cast was based on lies I was fed.

Now you put words in my mouth. I never said you cast your vote based on lies. I said that the electorate (including you) was fed lies by both sides. I have no idea why you voted Brexit. I was under the impression the UK is a socereign state within a union and your second principle appears economic to me. The electorate was fed lies but these, apparently, did not sway or fool you. Dine, but can this be said for the majority of those who voted (some perhaps less intelligent than me)? I read an interesting article that suggests the pro-Brexit leaders wanted this result because they will get richer while the vast majority will get poorer in relative terms. Granted the author was a liberal thinker but I think he made some interesting points.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'd have a word with the Catalans and Scots if I were you. You could include the Welsh and the Northern Irish. You could expand that to the Irish. Then you could start questioning the English as to whether they felt they had a proportional say in the UK...
After that you could start to question what it was/is that we do/don't have a say in. We could start with the Eurozone demanding we help with bailing out the Greek crisis. We could continue with fishing rights in our own waters, and go on to EU demands that unelected EU ambassadors have more priority than National ambassadors (which only Trump's America has rescinded)...

After that we could talk about NATO v EU Army, and the "Ever Increasing Union". I'll stop there for the moment. Let you digest that...

None of that is relevant to sovereignty.

As May has said repeatedly there will be many points of international law and standards that we will still be subject to after leaving.

Our parliament still had complete sovereign power by any definition of the word sovereign. If it didn't like the rules of the EU club (that we were part of forming said rules) then they could exercise said sovereignty by deciding to leave.

As has been said by May many times over - when we leave we will still be subject to international laws and standards - that doesn't mean we aren't sovereign. If we sign a Free trade deal with someone we will be subject to rules within it. That doesn't mean we aren't sovereign.

Scotland is not sovereign as whilst it can make some of its own laws - it cannot make ALL of them - AND - they cannot self determine their exit from the union.

Clear distinction.

You didn't bother to read what I wrote:

EU Treaty Law has primacy over UK Law, because we, by an Act of Parliament, joined the forerunner of the EU. In order to wrest that primacy back, we need to leave the EU. That is not an opinion. It is Fact.
THEREFORE IT IS A MATTER OF SOVEREIGNTY.

By definition we always had our sovereignty. End of. If you don’t like the rules of the club you can leave. As we are doing.

We were rule makers as part of the club.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'd have a word with the Catalans and Scots if I were you. You could include the Welsh and the Northern Irish. You could expand that to the Irish. Then you could start questioning the English as to whether they felt they had a proportional say in the UK...
After that you could start to question what it was/is that we do/don't have a say in. We could start with the Eurozone demanding we help with bailing out the Greek crisis. We could continue with fishing rights in our own waters, and go on to EU demands that unelected EU ambassadors have more priority than National ambassadors (which only Trump's America has rescinded)...

After that we could talk about NATO v EU Army, and the "Ever Increasing Union". I'll stop there for the moment. Let you digest that...

None of that is relevant to sovereignty.

As May has said repeatedly there will be many points of international law and standards that we will still be subject to after leaving.

Our parliament still had complete sovereign power by any definition of the word sovereign. If it didn't like the rules of the EU club (that we were part of forming said rules) then they could exercise said sovereignty by deciding to leave.

As has been said by May many times over - when we leave we will still be subject to international laws and standards - that doesn't mean we aren't sovereign. If we sign a Free trade deal with someone we will be subject to rules within it. That doesn't mean we aren't sovereign.

Scotland is not sovereign as whilst it can make some of its own laws - it cannot make ALL of them - AND - they cannot self determine their exit from the union.

Clear distinction.

You didn't bother to read what I wrote:

EU Treaty Law has primacy over UK Law, because we, by an Act of Parliament, joined the forerunner of the EU. In order to wrest that primacy back, we need to leave the EU. That is not an opinion. It is Fact.
THEREFORE IT IS A MATTER OF SOVEREIGNTY.

By definition we always had our sovereignty. End of. If you don’t like the rules of the club you can leave. As we are doing.

We were rule makers as part of the club.

...which makes it a matter of sovereignity: i.e direct or watered down.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

You will note, because basically you are an intelligent person, that apart from the last of the 'supposedly false claims' quoted (i.e. the Turkish Question), that they ALL revolve around economics. I have been quite absolutely clear throughout any debate that my opposition to EU membership is founded on two principles: Sovereignty; And not being peripheral to a core of countries who have monetary unity without fiscal unity.
You will not be surprised therefore, that I dismiss those 'false claims' with a mere "pah!".
You have failed to demonstrate even one reason why the vote I cast was based on lies I was fed.

Now you put words in my mouth. I never said you cast your vote based on lies. I said that the electorate (including you) was fed lies by both sides.

But you did: you said I had to vote according to the most appealing lie.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Now you put words in my mouth. I never said you cast your vote based on lies. I said that the electorate (including you) was fed lies by both sides.

But you did: you said I had to vote according to the most appealing lie.

If I may quote myself:

The electorate was asked to vote on an issue, the consequences of which they could not then and likely cannot now understand. The data they received to help make up their minds were a tissue of lies from both sides, so they had to vote for the most appealing lie. Democracy really requires an informed electorate, and yours has been sadly misinformed.

I was not talking about you specifically, or any individual. I was talking about the electorate in general that was fed false information. I had no intention of personalizing it. You challenged me to produce one example of such information. When I did you said you personally were not interested in those things anyway. Fair enough, but I still maintain the electorate was misinformed whether or not they listened.

[TANGODANCER]

I'm fed up of these refers, we should end um.

[Prufrock]

I'd have a word with the Catalans and Scots if I were you. You could include the Welsh and the Northern Irish. You could expand that to the Irish. Then you could start questioning the English as to whether they felt they had a proportional say in the UK...
After that you could start to question what it was/is that we do/don't have a say in. We could start with the Eurozone demanding we help with bailing out the Greek crisis. We could continue with fishing rights in our own waters, and go on to EU demands that unelected EU ambassadors have more priority than National ambassadors (which only Trump's America has rescinded)...

After that we could talk about NATO v EU Army, and the "Ever Increasing Union". I'll stop there for the moment. Let you digest that...

None of that is relevant to sovereignty.

As May has said repeatedly there will be many points of international law and standards that we will still be subject to after leaving.

Our parliament still had complete sovereign power by any definition of the word sovereign. If it didn't like the rules of the EU club (that we were part of forming said rules) then they could exercise said sovereignty by deciding to leave.

As has been said by May many times over - when we leave we will still be subject to international laws and standards - that doesn't mean we aren't sovereign. If we sign a Free trade deal with someone we will be subject to rules within it. That doesn't mean we aren't sovereign.

Scotland is not sovereign as whilst it can make some of its own laws - it cannot make ALL of them - AND - they cannot self determine their exit from the union.

Clear distinction.

You didn't bother to read what I wrote:

EU Treaty Law has primacy over UK Law, because we, by an Act of Parliament, joined the forerunner of the EU. In order to wrest that primacy back, we need to leave the EU. That is not an opinion. It is Fact.
THEREFORE IT IS A MATTER OF SOVEREIGNTY.

By definition we always had our sovereignty. End of. If you don’t like the rules of the club you can leave. As we are doing.

We were rule makers as part of the club.

...which makes it a matter of sovereignity: i.e direct or watered down.

Sovereignty is like pregnancy.