pwa wrote:but for 52% of people to vote to leave there must have been real dislike of the EU as an institution. Especially when you consider that some of the 48% voting to remain did so because they feared leaving
there must have been real dislike of the EU as an institution
Like there is a real dislike for the Westminster institution and even dare I say our own Senedd. However that doesnt necessarily extend to wishing to break up the Union (unfortunately) or putting up a border preventing me from cycling with the Pembrokeshire Freewheelers or doing some strimming in Narberth.
pwa wrote:but for 52% of people to vote to leave there must have been real dislike of the EU as an institution. Especially when you consider that some of the 48% voting to remain did so because they feared leaving
I think you're adding your own spin there.
+1
I'm not claiming that any precise percentage of the voters wanted this thing or that thing. I'm just saying that it is obvious that liking for the EU is not widespread in the UK. That is all I am saying. People who actually feel positive about the EU are in a minority. Significantly less than 50% would be my guess.
pwa wrote:It amazes me that the suggestion that EU leaders will be hard on the UK in order to deter dissent in their own countries does not produce more condemnation on this Forum. Don't we believe that the citizens of France, Hungary or wherever should have a free choice, without having their arms twisted? I believe that political leaders should be treating their citizens with respect, and trying to put their choices into action in a constructive way. If the EU governments believe in the EU they should make a positive case to their electorates, and not try to scare them by making life hard for those who have opted out.
If that really is how EU politics is going I am more glad than ever that we decided to leave. It stinks.
They are not "punishing the UK". They are acting to defuse the threats to the EU posed by their own versions of UKIP. If the UK gets a fabulous deal (e.g. Free Trade but no payment, no Freedom of Movement, no regulations, etc.) then obviously all the other member states would want the same deal (all the perks and none of the obligations).
So all they are talking about is "if you leave you leave and you can't have the benefits without the obligations". Basically they regard the four freedoms as fundamental (and that is not a recent thing, not in response to UK leaving). And they are just pointing out that Free Trade comes with the other 3 Freedoms (and that Boris, Gove, IDS, et al are in no position to pick and chose the benefits they want whilst having none of the obligations).
So no punishment, just upholding their established principles.
Of course the anti-EU people talk about "punishment" because that stirs up even more anti-EU sentiment and helps their anti-WU campaign (and that seems to work from reading comments here).
Ian
Either EU leaders are dealing with the UK in a way that is meant to quell dissent in their own countries, or they are not. Which is it? Should their own electorates be happy about being guided in that way?
The UK needs to come away with some restrictions on EU/UK labour movement. So the UK must make concessions. That's how grown up negotiations work. Making a contribution to EU development funds seems like an obvious starting point. It could be argued that developing the less developed economies of the EU is in our interest anyway.
It's not a question of "quelling dissent" but of benefits vs obligations. So if I decide to leave my sailing club and am then allowed to keep using all the facilities just as before then other members might start wondering why they are paying £200 a year and getting the same deal as I'm getting paying nothing - so they might then start considering stopping paying their membership fee. Using same analogy, if it's a fundamental principle of the sailing club that you take your turn doing rescue boat duty and bar duty and I leave but get this fantastic deal where I can keep sailing/racing/using changing rooms/everything without paying a subscription and I also announce that I am not prepared to participate in the fundamental principle of helping with club duties (as well as not being a member and not paying my membership fees) and I'm allowed to, other members might start wanting the same deal i.e. all the benefits but none of the obligations. (And the sailing club analogy is quite a good one as helping with club duties is often a "fundamental principle of membership" as one club I joined I had to be interviewed to confirm I understood about the "club duty" aspect and another I had to sign a form confirming I understood and would help with the club duties).
If the UK gets benefits without the obligations other EU member state UKIP equivalent parties would use this to start "Uk's can do it so we want the same deal" which would allow them to stir-up disquiet.
So again, it has nothing to do with "punishment". The term "punishment" is being used by the anti-EU politicians to stir-up anti-EU sentiment in the UK ("because nobody likes being punished"). They are spinning an untrue sentiment to further their own aims and as I commented before you can see even from this forum people are believing it and reacting as they want you to.
People who actually feel positive about the EU are in a minority. Significantly less than 50% would be my guess.
Is that the existence of the EU where we can all travel buy and work or the running of the EU by an unelected bureaucracy who ban straight bananas and give murderers the vote?
pwa wrote:I'm not claiming that any precise percentage of the voters wanted this thing or that thing. I'm just saying that it is obvious that liking for the EU is not widespread in the UK. That is all I am saying. People who actually feel positive about the EU are in a minority. Significantly less than 50% would be my guess.
IME most people don't know what the EU is, less what it does for them. What they do know is what the likes of Boris, Farage, The Daily Mail, Torygraph etc has been telling them. And apparently it's bad, like the worst thing ever. Once unchained the free'd people of the UK can reach their full potential... (etc etc)
using all the facilities just as before then other members might start wondering why they are paying £200 a year and getting the same deal as I'm getting paying nothing
Out of altruistic reasons to help a cause they believe in, rather like CUK membership.
kwackers wrote:I think you're adding your own spin there.
+1
I'm not claiming that any precise percentage of the voters wanted this thing or that thing. I'm just saying that it is obvious that liking for the EU is not widespread in the UK. That is all I am saying. People who actually feel positive about the EU are in a minority. Significantly less than 50% would be my guess.
Punishment, as a concept tied to Brexit is a ridiculous idea Both entitities want the best deal they can get. But Europe has to make leaving the union seem like a 'very bad idea indeed'.
So it'll likely be a messy divorce, and like every divorce they'll be winners and losers, but both sides will have lost substantially by end.
pwa wrote:I'm not claiming that any precise percentage of the voters wanted this thing or that thing. I'm just saying that it is obvious that liking for the EU is not widespread in the UK. That is all I am saying. People who actually feel positive about the EU are in a minority. Significantly less than 50% would be my guess.
IME most people don't know what the EU is, less what it does for them. What they do know is what the likes of Boris, Farage, The Daily Mail, Torygraph etc has been telling them. And apparently it's bad, like the worst thing ever. Once unchained the free'd people of the UK can reach their full potential... (etc etc)
+1
What was missing from the Remain argument was a clear and concise explanation of what the EU actually was, what it represented and how it protects and enriches our life in Britain (or did)
What was missing from the Remain argument was a clear and concise explanation of what the EU actually was, what it represented and how it protects and enriches our life in Britain (or did)
I seem to recall that many oddballs in parties like the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Lib-Dems were saying exactly that, plus of course all the experts. Could they get media exposure? No (with strong expletives for emphasis). That was given to the extremists.
pwa wrote:You can debate the way the referendum debate was conducted, but for 52% of people to vote to leave there must have been real dislike of the EU as an institution. Especially when you consider that some of the 48% voting to remain did so because they feared leaving, rather than because they liked the EU.
[citation needed]
I don't have time to dig the full tables out now but there was some rather more detailed questions in most of the polls undertaken before and after the referendum that shed some light on quite why people voted each way.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
pwa wrote:You can debate the way the referendum debate was conducted, but for 52% of people to vote to leave there must have been real dislike of the EU as an institution. Especially when you consider that some of the 48% voting to remain did so because they feared leaving, rather than because they liked the EU.
[citation needed]
I don't have time to dig the full tables out now but there was some rather more detailed questions in most of the polls undertaken before and after the referendum that shed some light on quite why people voted each way.
We don't really need to know why people voted as they did. The result was very clear and the government promise to implement the will of the people could not have been more explicit.
When I spoke to people who intended voting Remain, before the vote, I don't remember a single one being enthusiastically for the EU. The line I got was more along the lines of "I don't like the way the EU goes about things but........". Grudging support based on a calculation that things might be even worse on the other side of the fence. But this is all water under the bridge now.
We can only hope that the people who will negotiate, on all sides, are thinking about what positive vision they have for the EU/UK relationship in the future. Friendly and cooperative or distant and frosty. I know which I would choose and I hope they take a similar view.
We don't really need to know why people voted as they did. The result was very clear and the government promise to implement the will of the people could not have been more explicit.
Yes they voted to leave the EU, cant be clearer than that.
An example of leaving the EU is to remove the flag, get a black UK passport and call ourselves non-EU yet still honour all our commitments under the Maastricht treaty. That's what the people voted for!
Happy? Or would you rather know more accurately what they voted for?
