To not have moved on from the referendum result?

[Niamer]

Hi. I am a remoaner. I have bored myself with talking about it online and with a couple of likeminded friends.
I was have never been political, was pretty disengaged before the referendum but a 100% gut-feeling kind of a remainer and really expected the vote to go our way.

Felt devastated at the result; I am a believer in working closely with our neighbours, have lived in other Eu countries, have friends here from other EU countries who feel unwelcome etc etc. AND all the attachment to Europe stuff aside, it just seemed a far safer economic option to stay put. Why go for a bumpy ride when you don't even like where you're going? Also felt really cheated when people's reasons for leaving became clear.
I am amazed that some Remainers have just gone quiet and got weary of it all. As far as Leave voters, there has been plenty of "suck it up" comments and total quiet from others. It hasn't been long but time is not healing for me. In fact the Tory conference seemed to take the grimness up a notch. Still so upset and wanting to protest (and have done in every way that I can think of)

I am currently in groups with staunch Remainers like myself, so I know how they are feeling. Outside of that, it isn't an easy topic to discuss. Remainers, Leavers, non-voters, please could you tell me where you're at? TIA

I wonder whose workplace is next to be told the input of 'the forriners' won't be welcome?

How many of you 'I'm not British but voted Leave...' could be in this position when other organisations toe the Tory line?

I'm not talking about an EU army. But your response is a classic example of people preferring to straw man rather than engage in the issues.

I am talking about whether or not we as a nation are going to end up involved in a major war in Europe, which in no way requires the creation of an EU army, but could well lead to conscription.

Why dont we all start our own threads on here as we are special too

Absolutely. It's a massive issue that many people feel strongly about. The more constructive and polite discussion we have the better. It may help to heal the misconceptions on both sides.

I don't know why you're getting a hard time OP, you've been civil throughout the thread and respectful of people's opinions.

I am sorry if I misunderstood you almond, but conscription to some EU war is regularly mentioned on here. Can I ask what it is you imagine - that we would (as a member of the EU) conscript our youth to a UK army to fight in a war in, say, Poland, because it is an EU member?

And you feel that European war is now less likely? I am confused, sorry.

If the collapse is connected to war in Eastern Europe, there is potentially a huge difference between us fighting in that war and not fighting in it, particularly if it comes to the conscription of our young people

As members of NATO we would get drawn into a war that affected fellow NATO members.

Even if we weren't members of NATO it is highly likely that we would get drawn into a war in Europe.

We don't tend to fight troop heavy ground wars anymore, but any war that involved conscription would be unavoidable in or out of the EU.

There may well be European military treaties in the future. There is no need for them to be linked to EU membership.

Thanks Almond. There have been so many interesting points made . Really grateful to everyone who's contributed to the thread.

As far as I understand it, the following is the case:

1. A main purpose of the EU is to prevent war in Europe.
2. Historically we have been involved in wars that were not about the defence of our own nation.
3. NATO may not exist in the future (see whole Trump scenario).
4. NATO has grown, despite claiming it would not do so, at end of Cold War.
5. Alternative treaties will be required.
6. Some recently conflict involved countries are now in the EU with their opponents outside of it.
7. Lots of European leaders are extremely concerned about Russian foreign policy.
8. Russia is not in the EU despite being one of the major players in the wars the EU was created in response to.

It would therefore seem to be a major concern that Europe could end up in a major war at any point in the next twenty years. A major part of whether or not we should remain has to be based on what our obligations and best options would be in the event of war, something our political leaders declined to address in any detail, as they declined to address almost every major issue in the run up to the referendum.

I am now a social pariah. In our modern, democratic, tolerant society, I am scum for exercising my democratic right to vote the way I did.

My deepest sympathies. It must be terrible to feel despised and unwanted simply because of who you are and because of things you have no control over.

My deepest sympathies. It must be terrible to feel despised and unwanted simply because of who you are and because of things you have no control over.

I can do without the sarcastic form of sneering too, thanks.

I think I agree with you that there is a non-zero chance we could end up with war in Europe in the next 20 years. I don't think I understand what your point is though - is this a good reason to undertake a 20-year exercise to extract ourselves from the EU? Are we creating instability in doing so, which means that war (or at least sabre rattling from Russia) is more likely?

I would personally think no, and yes. I agree with merry that being in or not in the EU is unlikely to make much odds in whether we engage in a particular war.

Oops:

I meant to say:

"Even if we weren't members of NATO it is highly likely that we would NOT get drawn into a war in Europe."

I am now a social pariah. In our modern, democratic, tolerant society, I am scum for exercising my democratic right to vote the way I did

Was - what does this tell you about these people? The irony!

If you want to work in Canada you have to go through test after test, and prove categorically that you are not taking a job from ONE Canadian. Thats OK.

But having factories full of EE workers is fine, the jobs are not even advertised here but in EE . Its slave labour, its shuffling poor deprived people in for crap wages living in sub standard accommodation.

The irony!

I can do without the sarcastic form of sneering too, thanks.

I find it genuinely fascinating that you instantly assume evil motives, sarcasm and sneering and then react with aggression. Is it because I'm the enemy species and you feel visceral hate for me?

I had actually meant what I said in a spirit of genuine sympathy - speaking as an individual who is being demonised because of who I am and what I can't help. And then you go ahead and demonstrate exactly that which you (and I) have suffered.

My point is that I do not know which makes war more likely.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU member states are obliged to defend each other in the event of war, so given questions over the future of NATO, it would be EU membership that ties us into obligations to war in Europe.

No, hang on, I was right the first time.

YY Niamer - most people on this thread have made intelligent and well argued points! I think we're all grown up enough to ignore the silly ranty ones.

Surely there is one thing that we can all agree on - that the situation is what it is and it's up to all of us to work together to achieve the best future we can?

FWIW I'm very sorry the EU isn't working properly. If it was working properly, I would have voted differently. But to reiterate, it isn't working, and it can't work.

Someone up thread said something about the UK (Cameron) negotiating some sort of break clause from the 'ever closer union' bit. I do remember that, but frankly I reached a point some time ago when I realised that a promise like that isn't worth the paper it's written on, not from Eurocrats. This leads on to the issue of trust of course!

The image I have of the EU government system is of a political class who do not have any real experience of life outside a well-off middle class academic clique. Rather like our own senior bureaucracy really! But ours can be and has in the past been toppled by the popular vote, whereas the EU bureaucracy is so well entrenched it's unshiftable.

As a believer in 'small' government, I want to have more control over decisions that directly affect me. I was one of the very few people who voted for change in the previous referendum about reforming voting for Parliament - remember that? I've always been mystified as to why that campaign never got into any sort of gear! I want out of EU and then a sensible new PR set up for Westminster.

Well, a girl can dream can't she?

My understanding of what our commitments are is from here:

eeas.europa.eu/topics/common-security-and-defence-policy-csdp/5388/shaping-of-a-common-security-and-defence-policy-_en

I think that is an impartial source.

What people want our commitments to defence to be in the future is something we should be having a conversation about as part of Brexit, which involves looking at potential conflict across Europe.

I am now a social pariah. In our modern, democratic, tolerant society, I am scum for exercising my democratic right to vote the way I did.

There seems to have been much mud-slinging and I have seen much abuse from both sides in online discussions.

I feel very angry, but not with Leave voters. All my friends voted for what they genuinely thought was the best thing for themselves and their families. You can't really ask for more than that can you? I blame the system that allowed this to happen. To give us a choice where really the only viable option was option A for us then to pick option B is going to prove painful for all of us. I hope that as a result of this debacle, both Poliiticians and the media will be held accountable for their conduct and will show the honesty and integrity that has been sadly lacking.

Farage said he would not accept 52:48

neither should we

I've done a bit of rummaging - there are two Lisbon treaty clauses that I think you could be referring to. I find this fascinating so feel free to skip everyone who has something else to do on a Friday eve

Art 42.7 “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter”

This refers to member states (rather than the EU) acting on their own behalf but together, and through a vote in the EP. It is worth noting it doesn't override national security/defence concerns, through "“shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States”".

This article was requested by Greece as Turkey is part of NATO and their were fearful that NATO may not protect them. It has been used, by France in response to last year's terror attacks and to garner support for its actions against IS. It is also worth noting that there was considerable interpretation by each member state as to what their "assistance" might mean.

And then there is this:

Art 222 The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to:

(a) - prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;

- protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;
- assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a terrorist attack;

(b) assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

Note that this refers to terrorism and "manmade disaster" rather than acts of armed aggression as 42.7 does. Note also that council members can abstain, (per Article 31(1) of Treaty of European Union - at least I think that's what that says) which is a "constructive abstension" and means you don't have to take part in the action.

So it seems less certain that you have any requirement to take part in any action that you wouldn't want to. I will have a look at that link though - I guess another good point is that we will need to define how we interact with EU and European defence sounds like more bloody bureaucracy in future.

RIGHT, wine time.

Farage said he would not accept 52:48

neither should we

That was one of many things that needed to be sorted out prior to the vote. Any margin less than unanimity can be quibbled later. Perhaps there should have been a turnout and margin requirement - but it's too late to do that now. That wasn't the basis of the vote.

TheElementsSong

Sincere apologies - I am getting cynical and hard-bitten in my old age.

I really enjoyed that.

That should of course be "Treaty on European Union" before you all pile in.