[BigDog.]

Unlike the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, Gibraltar opted to enter the EU on the coat tails of UK.

There are many special territories eg Azores, Canaries, Madeira, Cueta and Melilla, Aland Isles, Faroes, which have different status both wrt their protecting nation and EU.

Gibraltarians are counted as British nationals for the purposes of EU law and are part of South West England when it comes to voting for MEPs.

[CathayLoyalist2]

As Farage said and on this point he is right “this is not the best of three”. It was a referendum run over 8+ weeks. There was an abundance of information on the web that anyone could have accessed to get further insight if they needed it. The march in London was anti democracy plain and simple. People talk about the future of the young being disregarded yet only 36% of the of eligible young bothered to vote. If the vote was about joining, based on everything we know about the EU today. I have no doubt the vote would have been ‘No’. Each day there are more comments from member states saying the EU must reform. The UK had the balls to ‘blow the bugle” on an unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic EU elite so let’s hear no more twaddle about a second referendum and focus on making it work

[DavidSmith2]

I think that’s a little disingenuous BigDog. At the time of our entry to the EEC, Spain had entirely closed the border and was threatening to actively re-assert its claim to sovereignty. It is not surprising that they therefore saw membership as a significant benefit in safeguarding their position.

[BigDog.]

As to there being a lack of an exit plan. We are a parliamentary democracy, all of the main parties (who formulate a manifesto and plan) had a remain majority and agenda.

Given the Government and indeed the opposition (2 major parties) were pro remain there isn’t the mechanism for a cross party, minority group to formulate government policy. “Leave” does not exist as a parliamentary party.

Further, it is a negotiation with another party, not a diktat.

On a personal front, I opted for a participatory democracy as opposed to quiescent one. The EU elite, living in their obscenely paid protected bubble have, as Andrea Leadsom eloquently put it, conspired to impose decades of major youth unemployment on Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, ignoring the plight of the young in pursuit of their EU federalist agenda.

If the EU had responded by reflecting on the UK vote, attempting to understand why so many people not just in the UK but across Europe feel alienate by/disenchanted with the grand scheme, then may have listened to the arguments from those impacted by SLS. However the EU railroad appears to be generating even more steam wanting to press ahead toward faster political union, via monetary and fiscal union and forcing the non Euro members to join, regardless of the collateral damage it causes -as the elites exist in their life-long protected bubble.

[canucklad]

Transtraxman, your points are reasoned and would be valid excepting for one point…..
The bill that was passed creating the referendum was passed as an instruction to parliament and not a consultative referendum
For our parliament to dismiss that instruction and by doing so break their own promise would surely be an affront to democracy.

[DavidSmith2]

canucklad, can you clarify that point. In what sense was parliament instructed to pass the bill and that they should consider the result as mandatory?

My understanding is that, unlike the referendum on election reform, which contained an explicit instruction that the result was binding, the EU referendum bill contained no such provision.

Leaving aside the ethical issue of whether the result should be accepted (especially by those who promised they would accept it), our constitution makes ‘The Queen in Parliament’ sovereign.

[SimonS1]

@ BigDog – indeed the same Angela Leadsom who only 3 years ago told us that leaving the EU would be a disaster. Remarkable how MPs’ views change based on political expediency.

[BigDog.]

Yes Simon, one may view it that way.
I prefer at this stage, to give Mrs. Leadsom the benefit of the doubt and accept her statement that her research, initially as a Europhile, as part of “the fresh start project”, led her to become one of the most informed parliamentarians on the subject of the EU.

…The Fresh Start Project was formed In September 2011 by three UK Conservative MPs, Andrea Leadsom, Chris Heaton-Harris and George Eustice.[ Its expressed aims are to examine the options for a new UK-EU relationship, set out what this new relationship could look like, establish a process for achieving change and build political support to make it happen…

Her research led to realisation that the EU was unlikely reform itself from within, thus changed her position.

[stevescoots]

We are all allowed to change our minds. as we recovered from 2008 crisis I was pro EU on the basis that together we recover faster, but as the debt situation in the southern countries, the omnishambles that was the Ukraine strategy and the utter disaster that is the handling of the migrant issue has shown I went for exit. that does not make me a hypocrite, but adapatable to change.

[DavidSmith2]

stevescoots, I don’t disagree that strategies for Ukraine and for illegal migrants have been mishandled by the EU, although that is largely (for me) with hindsight. Also these are foreign policy issues where all member states have a veto in most key areas of the policy. In terms of migration, the UK veto was limited though as some issues were Schengen-related, and we are not members of Schengen.

But, notwithstanding the mistakes and who may or may not be to blame, I personally do not think they are sufficient reason to justify such a fundamental change of view – in my view, the EU is much more about the internal union than foreign policy.

I completely respect anyone who changes their mind, and explains why – that is the purpose of debate and discussion. But the consequence of being brave enough to admit a change of stance means that the person who does so is potentially open to a further change of stance, if convincing evidence is presented.

I hope that those who are open to debate and discussion will remain so because I am convinced that the referendum only scratched the surface of the real debate – about sovereignty, immigration, democracy and security – in a very superficial way.

[BigDog.]

This Ted talk enlightens on why some stick to their position regardless(soldiers), and why some change position (scouts). It is a simplified psychological perspective and does not refer to the EU debate.

http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you_re_wrong?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2016-07-02&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_button

[stevescoots]

Britain is the road sign, since the 16th century we have shown the way. Others have read our sign, followed the path we have shown and then overtaken us. When they have lost their way we have put up a new sign to show the way. We take the pain of change but we come through and the rest follow. From building an Empire to recognizing Empire is over, being the first advocates of free trade, the industrial revolution, the abolition of slavery. Equal rights for women, human rights, establishment of trade unions, abandoning capital punishment, freedom of religious expression, multiculturalism, taking the pain of deregulation in the 80’s Britain to rebuild a shattered economy we have lead the way. In 20 years’ time people will look back and say it was Britain that again gave the voice of the people of Europe back to the people of Europe and then it will be time for us to erect a new signpost. United states of Europe is a dream, it’s a dream to go forward to, but it’s a dream that is 3 generations in the making. you only have to look at the voting matrix. the young are brought up on the EU ideal so they want to keep it, to them it’s the norm. if the Eu want one nation Europe they have to look at a 75-year timescale for it to be acceptable as the norm, not 30 years. Rome wasn’t built in a day, or a generation, or even 1 man’s lifetime. it took several hundred years. I am all for a united Europe but it should be my grandchildren that decide it when they have grandchildren, when for them it becomes the norm it will be acceptable by the masses

[MrMichael]

Stevescoots, interesting post. Moreover, I think your probably right. Personally I want UK to remain UK, not a part of a federal Europe but a place where our parliament makes the laws and our Queen is sovereign. If my children, or their children’s children decide otherwise then fine. That will be the choice in the future, and meanwhile it is our generations that must decide…for now.

[canucklad]

Hi David.
Apologies if my post was ambiguous. The Prime minister fulfilled his election manifesto pledge by securing a majority YES vote in Westminster, Thus passing responsibility into our hands on the UKs future relationship with the EU…Instructive ,do as we say, not do as we think Bill

[DavidSmith2]

Canucklad, thanks for the response. I completely agree with the case you make about the transfer of responsibility from the conservative party (in their manifesto), to the electorate, back to the elected Conservative Government and then to Parliament, which approved the Bill (with a huge majority)

My position however remains that, unless Parliament specifies otherwise (as they did with the Bill for Electoral Reform), referendums do not have any constitutional or legal place in our representative democracy.

The problem is that people assumed they did and, more importantly, Cameron and others told them that it did. Those who made that promise should morally abide by it, of course but I think many will now think again about the wisdom of referendums of any kind in the future or at least the status they accord them.

[Author]

Posts