if referendums are bad why are remaniacs not saying we should leave after all we went in based on a 1975 flawed referendum said it was just a common market

[confussssed]

see subject only logical answers only.

My logical answer is that you posted this in the wrong section

Can't argue with that!

how do i get it moved apologies.

Click on the report option where three dots are.

Hi OP. We'll move this over to the Brexit board now.

I do think referendums are a poor fit with British democracy which is based on electing representatives.

This doesn't mean that we can just turn back time and overturn any decisions that were made that way.

Leaving the European Union was not the right decision in 2016, because of the enormous difficulties of disentangling ourselves; as we have seen.

It might have been possible to do it by degrees, but once we had announced our intention to leave then it was bound to be torturous and acrimonious.

What a bloody mess.

Referendums, properly conducted and with strict guidelines and where the various outcomes are planned for are no real problem, is one aspect.
Secondly the world has moved on a bit since 1975, except in some peoples minds and extending the original remit of the common market which was intended as a practical way to bind as many countries within Europe together to reduce the risk of war has been pretty successful.
David Cameron's referendum was a balls up to start with and has gone downhill ever since. It was only an 'advisory' and the criteria for 'pass or fail' were not set.

A vote to go down to the shops, yes/no seems OK.
If you then explain that on the way to the shops, there are soldiers who will shoot at you, changes the question significantly.
If you had been told of the risk, it might change your voting decision.

I think people tend to make their decisions on how things are now rather than the past.

From my POV I made my decision based on my knowledge of economics and history and that what I did at uni.

Personally I think it’s reasonable to object based on the Maastricht, or Lisbon Treaties.

I’ve also always pointed out that voting in was doing so with as much uncertainty as voting out gives as voting in doesnt just mean you’re in acceptance of the EU as it is today, but that EU policy is to continue to evolve into a closer political, social, legal and economic state.

You’ve only got to look at what the EU was 15 years ago. It’s vastly different and despite being ‘at the table’ we were swept along by these changes and could reform them so we’re powerless anyway!

What’s really sad is how politics for the masses has been changed for the worse by the confirmation bias of social media. Those who don’t agree with you are stupid, thick, selfish, uneducated...

This is why Trump and Brexit have been such a surprise!

Referendums are not appropriate in a representative democracy. They work in places like the Ireland because they are part of their constitution and are well organised and planned.

I don't think referenda are a good fit for then U.K. as this whole debacle is clearly showing.

The 1975 referendum to remain (not join) was equally flawed.

However, the ignorance of the British public on constitutional matters is staggering so while we don't need a referendum, constitutionally or legally, to remain we need a referendum politically.

The public would not accept a change made by Parliament alone so another advisory referendum is needed.

It's a total and utter disasters and we, as a country, should be thoroughly ashamed.

You are wrong in saying that we were told it was "just a common market". There was a big emphasis even then on unity in Europe and the role of the union in promoting European peace - with good reason.

Leaving the European Union was not the right decision in 2016, because of the enormous difficulties of disentangling ourselves; as we have seen

Actually that was one of my reasons for wanting out and wanting something more like Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Canada.

Trouble has always been that it was a yes/no question to whether we would be fully enmeshed or what people wanted instead.

No deal would be suicide as business hasn’t prepared. The majority of trade is with non-EU countries but a huge proportion is with the EU because of our enmeshed relationship. Reminds me of people in unhappy marriages because they are used to the familiar and scared of leaving. Doesn’t mean we couldn’t be better off chasing emerging markets with higher growth. This country has always been bad at spotting changes in the markets and preferring to be a larger fish in a smaller pond that eventually dries up. The loss off major traditional manufacturing industries that are now flourishing elsewhere modernised is example of this.

{It’s vastly different and despite being ‘at the table’ we were swept along by these changes and could reform them so we’re powerless anyway!}
Except that being at the table we were involved in writing many of the laws and regulations and even after that we could veto stuff we didn't like and we also had exemptions from ever closer political ties written into our membership agreement.
The unicorn notion that the UK can become a 'manufacturing superpower' again is total fantasy because with the globalisation of manufacturing many other countries have the resources and often cheap labour to 'beat' the UK (now) hands down. You need to think what fantastic 'thing' can the UK do that is so brilliant that no other country can do it. It would have to be REALLY good because unless the UK keeps CU/SM with the EU it will have to still be brilliant even when it has high tariffs placed on it.
Graphene is a possible technology that could transform the world, originally 'discovered' in Manchester. Companies around the world spotted it's brilliance and have snapped up the 'right's to this innovation.

My logical answer is this is old news. We voted. BeLeavers won. They don't like it that May hasn't delivered unicorns so they are very cross. Hopefully they will have a little tantrum but we won't crash out. Because if we crash out, they and everyone else will suffer.

It wasn't sold as just a common market. But a bunch of Leaver babies aren't old enough to remember this.

Doesn’t mean we couldn’t be better off chasing emerging markets with higher growth

We can do that and stay in the EU.

How many times does this need repeating?

Look at the mess we are in and we haven't even left!

The higher growth of emerging markets is nothing like the EU market. 1% growth from a big number is better than 100% growth from a small number. And we won't have the negotiating weight of being in a big economic bloc any more.

I think it is BMW who have announced massive expansion in China planned for 4 year's time when a particular Chinese law ruling changes.
MASSIVE opportunity for BMW and they are of course in the EU.

The majority of trade is with non-EU countries but a huge proportion is with the EU because of our enmeshed relationship

Totally incorrect, we do this trade with the European countries because they are right next to us geographically, my friends company can sell security equipment as easily to a buyer in Paris as easily as he can to one in Plymouth, to sell to a buyer in Perth (regardless of any FTA) takes an age, issues with local spares and servicing and of course they can buy locally more easily & cheaper, the same reasons we don't buy Holden cars.

There is zilch in the EU rules that stop us selling to China USA or anywhere else, i believe Belgium sells more to China than we do, Germany 4x as much.

Referendums are bad and should never be used but we got here by one and need another to get us out of this mire, one way or the other! any additional vote should be on the terms of the Brexit deal, Accept or Remain, after that (who ever wins) both sides need to stfu.

Bizarrely it takes as long for goods purchased in Leeds to get to me in rural France as it does 60 miles across England.

I think you have a nerve, using the tern 'Remainiacs' and asking for a respectful conversation.

Anyone who calls people Remainiacs is asking for childish responses because it is a childish term. Let the grown ups deal with this , sweetie, because the toddlers shouldn't be in charge of important things.

Scotland voted for devolution in the 70s by 52 to 48. The same as the Brexit vote margin. But it wasn't allowed because there was a caveat that 40% of those allowed to vote had to have agreed and this was not reached. Under the same circumstances Brexit would not be happening now. Seems sensible thing to do to me when you are dealing with major changes.

For me, the use of the term “remainiac” illustrates perfectly why it’s a bad idea to rule by referendum. At least, here and now.

The country at large doesn’t seem to be capable of having a reasonable, adult, and respectful conversation on the subject based on facts.

It’s all about taking sides and then attacking the other side viciously. It’s a ridiculous way to behave, and sensible decisions aren’t made on this basis.

Regards the previous referendum; it was a common market at the time of the vote. You can’t throw out the result decades hence based on hindsight; that’s clearly ridiculous.

Your thread title is pure goady fuckery.