Should there be a second referendum on leaving the EU?

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • The age of the internet has made information available that was previously suppressed, in particular, document FCO 30/1048.

    I'm sure that if people had known in the '75 referendum where the common market was actually heading then the result could have been very different.

  • You paint a very bleak picture of the UK. Would you care to forecast the future of the EU and its citizens?

    ps. No government has the right to hand power to a foreign government, without explicit electoral consent. The sovereignty of the country is not theirs to give. Sovereignty is 'loaned' to Parliament. The age of the internet has made information available that was previously suppressed, in particular, document FCO 30/1048.

    I don't believe the EU is fairing particularly well in the current global economic climate. It is inevitable that when countries with a significantly lower GDP than our own join the same economic community as they have done in recent years that a redistribution of wealth has to occur in some way shape or form over time. The whole idea behind the EU is that in the end wealth will balance out in the long term between our nations. I don't believe or pretend that it's ideal or we'd all live happily ever after, but I know in the scenario we're in its better the devil you know. Its not a thriving global economy and our tiny country pulling out to go at it alone I just don't think we have the guts and slog needed within us as a nation and think we've had it good for so long a whole generation have never even seen difficult times to understand.

    Its only been in recent years that anyone's really started complaining about sovereignty. I don't think sovereignty has even been lost but I think it'll be such a trial matter when put up against problems that are on their way.

    There's a lot of people on here giving a lot of credit to those who have been claiming benefits and sickness most of their working life as these are who we'll need to count on to do their fair share of the unskilled jobs.

  • I'm sure that if people had known in the '75 referendum where the common market was actually heading then the result could have been very different.

    We've spoken on this subject before, although I don't think Fidget and the newer members were around then, but the EEC as was, was formulated at the end of WW2 as a purely political mechanism with the primary purpose to merge France and Germany together, therefore preventing a further major war between, seeing as those two countries had fought three major wars with each other, including two world wars within 100 years of each other.

    By merging their coal, gas and steel industries together in the much fought over Ruhr Valley, that was merely a stepping stone to far greater integration between those countries.

    That was then and still is now, a perfectly logical thing to do, except, the peoples of those countries never got a say in it. They were never told that the whole "ever closer union" was about removing nationalism, sovereignty and the individual identity of European countries, thus removing some of the main reasons which had led to so much death and destruction during all those wars.

    The problem is, if we all wanted to be the same people, we would be. We all come from African origins, but clearly we are not African. There has been various empires over the years, but taking the obvious one, the Roman Empire, that empire collapsed because people wanted their own identity and to rule themselves. Be their own tribe and not subsumed into the Roman one.

    Until the peoples of Europe and the world choose to merge with each other, it will not happen and by forcing it like the EU is trying to do, it will create the very extreme nationalism that caused world wars, rather than preventing it. The evidence being the rise of the far right in several European countries. And of course this is not just a European issue, I see ASEAN going the same way, to name just one other "trading" bloc.

  • I don't believe the EU is fairing particularly well in the current global economic climate. It is inevitable that when countries with a significantly lower GDP than our own join the same economic community as they have done in recent years that a redistribution of wealth has to occur in some way shape or form over time. The whole idea behind the EU is that in the end wealth will balance out in the long term between our nations. I don't believe or pretend that it's ideal or we'd all live happily ever after, but I know in the scenario we're in its better the devil you know. Its not a thriving global economy and our tiny country pulling out to go at it alone I just don't think we have the guts and slog needed within us as a nation and think we've had it good for so long a whole generation have never even seen difficult times to understand.

    It's the "inevitable" bit, I have a problem with there.

    It is perfectly logical for the EU to want poorer members to be richer, ultimately that enriches everyone. But under whose mandate, permission, did they seek before going about this policy? I never gave my permission for my country's wealth to be redirected elsewhere and besides, before the eastern countries, it was Ireland that was the largest beneficiary of EU handouts, so this policy has been going on for a very long time.

    It's something I feel very strongly about given my own personal circumstances. Our people should be our priority, especially the elderly, disabled and vulnerable, first and foremost.

    I agree with you that the EU believes that wealth will balance out between nations, but that simply is not the case. Germany came into the euro on parity, in effect the euro was always the deutchmark in everything but name. That was not the case with other countries entering the euro. It gave Germany dominance over all others, especially the Mediterranean countries and that will never change while they're locked together in the same currency.

    It's because of "better the devil you know" which is why it is a fantasy to believe that very different nations at this time in human evolvent can come together in the way that the EU is ultimately planing. One day perhaps, but not now. See my reply to Heero on more about this.

    On the point about being alone, we will never truly be alone in this 21st century world with such close connections between countries, we just simply don't need to merge with them. We have great scientists, engineers, artists etc, we are leading in many fields such as genetics and AI. We can do just fine.:)

    Its only been in recent years that anyone's really started complaining about sovereignty. I don't think sovereignty has even been lost but I think it'll be such a trial matter when put up against problems that are on their way

    You would have to state what those are before I could comment further, but sovereignty, one's identity is a massive issue. But the threats, as I see them, are from power hungry, autocrats nut jobs that are in power in countries such as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

  • It is perfectly logical for the EU to want poorer members to be richer, ultimately that enriches everyone. But under whose mandate, permission, did they seek before going about this policy? I never gave my permission for my country's wealth to be redirected elsewhere and besides, before the eastern countries, it was Ireland that was the largest beneficiary of EU handouts, so this policy has been going on for a very long time.

    A very good post Horizon but I thought I'd make one small addition. Here is a comment I have stolen from another forum:

    Ever joined a club where half the members pay no subscriptions so you have to pay much more to cover them?

    Ever joined a club where the committee that makes all the rules is unelected?

    Ever joined a club that uses your money to give a few presents to your kids but gives you no credit?

    Ever joined a club that allows the families of other members to come and live in your house without your permission?

    Ever joined a club that never has its accounts signed off?

    Ever joined a club that says not matter how illegally its committee members act you can never report them to the police?

    Ever joined a club where ex committee members continue to be paid huge sums as long as they are never critical of it?

    Ever joined a club dominated by one individual who reaps the vast majority of benefit while some members go hungry?

    Ever joined a club that threatens to punish you if you leave?

    Welcome to the EU, sign here......

    I will add one more comment: The EU will never be 'the devil you know'. It can be better described as the 'devil you will never be allowed to know'. In the UK, each party puts forward a manifesto for elections. If a UK party fails to keep their promises they get kicked out next time around (see LibDems for an actual example).

    What choice are we given with the direction the EU is taking? None! What can we do about it? Nothing, because we are never give a real democratic choice by the EU, so we have to appoint Eurosceptics as politicians, and this is happening on an increased scale throughout the EU. The EU gives us no other option to get our voices heard about the dislike of a federal Europe, and loss of sovereignty.

    Why are we still re-running the referendum? The peoples vote was clear. The majority want to leave the EU. The shenanigans (disgusting anti-democratic behaviour) in the Commons and Lords makes me more determined that democracy and sovereignty will be restored.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • A second referendum is a complete non-starter. Would the result be respected? The answer is a resounding NO (due to the precedence of the first referendum not having been respected), and very few people now trust politicians to be honest and keep to their promises.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • I think your WTO tariff argument reveals a Remainer bias. A 26% EU import tariff is an extreme example and you know it. Also, bear in mind that, for a great many products, the tariff applies to the raw or basic product, which may only represent a modest percentage of the total selling price retail. The rest is marketing, advertising, packaging, assembling or processing, distribution and administration. With many consumer products, the “base imported product” that is subject to a tariff, will represent less than a third of the total selling price. This in itself is hardly adds up to a financial doomsday. So you might want to consider easing up on the Project Fear bullshit.

    It reveals a remainer bias like it should, as I am in general, a remainer. The 26% example is just that, an example, of WTO rules being a set higher base tariff a cross the board. The fact of the raw or base materials being subject to higher tariffs absolutely would result in financial doomsday, and for a number of industries. To believe this wouldn't happen you must either be hoping for a miracle or have poor understanding of how a capitalist economy works.

    You say a second referendum doesn’t make for good short term politics but you go on to say we need a second referendum. I can only make sense of what you say if you mean that a 2nd referendum is a necessary short-term expedience to break a log jam but a pathetic way to govern a country.

    It's meant exactly how I've said it but for your ease an example for comparison could be if there was a stout Catholic married couple and the husband beat his wife black and blue on a daily basis, it could be thought that the wife shouldn't get a divorce (as her religion forbids it & would break her vows) but she needs one.

    Thank goodness almost 60% of our exports are to countries outside the EU cartel.

    That still happens to be a massive portion of our total exports that are going to the EU and that are under threat. Not only that but of the exports going to non-EU countries how many of those exported products are no longer competitive because they consisted of manufactured products from parts from the EU (cars as a specific example)

    [W]hat leverage do we have to get the EU to play ball with us once we are non-members? I would suggest;

    2) We could import considerably less from the EU and more from the non-EU. This would most certainly concentrate EU minds on whether to hatch a trade deal with us to sidestep WTO tariffs. Examples on reduced dependence on EU imports include fruit and vegetables from South Africa, Kenya, Morocco, cars and electrical appliances from Asia and the Far East, wine from South Africa, South America and, and with immigration reduced to a civilised level, home self-sufficiency turns into a necessity that could become the mother of invention

    3) To ensure that the EU doesn’t think they have us over a barrel on points 1 and 2 above, we would need to try harder to increase our percentage of exports that go to non-EU countries. I agree with you that we don’t have much to offer in the way of export products and services but what little we do have can, with a bit of effort, be more slanted to non-EU countries. Frankly, one of the reasons why 50% of our exports go to the EU is because it’s such a soft option in terms of administration, transportation and specification. If we want to be winners, we need to work at it. Either we are UK plc or we are the local office of an EU conglomerate

    This states what 'we' could do to put leverage on the EU to play ball. The only problem with this is that being a free trading capitalist country the government has no say in who 'we' sell to or buy from. The fact that the EU as you put it is a soft option for admin, transport etc. is irrelevant. The ONLY reason a business sells or buys products to or from anywhere is plain simple money.

    Its easy to sit and think "well we're going to have to be more competitive or take less profit" but over the last 10-20 years our businesses have striven to make themselves as streamlined and close to the margins as possible due to competition from all angles and numerous already saturated markets. So, to possibly survive and 'try that bit harder' businesses will have to make job cuts, they will have to hope labour market reforms and red tape is removed. Minimum wage is scrapped, pension contributions slashed and workers rights such as holidays and any job security's done away with. Any of these alone would have a marked effect on the financial economy but the main takeaway is that even a small upset to a businesses competitive advantage will have far reaching consequences and massive knock on effects.

    We've spoken on this subject before, although I don't think Fidget and the newer members were around then, but the EEC as was, was formulated at the end of WW2 as a purely political mechanism with the primary purpose to merge France and Germany together, therefore preventing a further major war between, seeing as those two countries had fought three major wars with each other, including two world wars within 100 years of each other.

    I think the main goal was to bring about mutual trade to counteract the aggressive economic policies of the then Soviet Union that posed a threat greater than they posed to each other and communist in nature. This would of course in turn bring harmonious relationships within the European countries and as you've pointed out prevent hostilities between them.

    It's the "inevitable" bit, I have a problem with there.

    But surely it is inevitable that for when countries are joined in such a union that a redistribution of wealth will take place purely due to the free movement of people and money. That a given so shouldn't be a problem?

    I agree with you that the EU believes that wealth will balance out between nations, but that simply is not the case. Germany came into the euro on parity, in effect the euro was always the deutchmark in everything but name. That was not the case with other countries entering the euro. It gave Germany dominance over all others,

    All other countries entering into the Euro were exchanged with current exchange rates. Can you explain how in the world that gives Germany an advantage as surely the name given to the currency has little effect on its value? With time wealth will even out, with free movement of people and money how can't it or why wouldn't it?

    The EU isn't perfect by a long shot but I'm not sure we'll ever make it alone. In the grand scheme of things I dont think sovereignty is the be all and end all, in fact I think the EU would be in a better position if we actually had a clear goal of being united into one big state like USA with a federal government and a state one for each country.

  • The EU is a monster, aided and abetted by our own politicians. They disregard their own treaties with impunity, when it suits them.

    Democracy was destroyed the day Heath took us into the EEC, and politicians have lied to us from that day in order to keep us there. Europe may be powerful under the EU, but it's a dictatorial power. They have total disregard for the people of Europe. This disregard will result in civil war, or worse and all the money the EU takes from the people won't be used to help the people, but will be used to gain more power and create an even bigger monster.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • I think the main goal was to bring about mutual trade to counteract the aggressive economic policies of the then Soviet Union that posed a threat greater than they posed to each other and communist in nature. This would of course in turn bring harmonious relationships within the European countries and as you've pointed out prevent hostilities between them.

    The EEC was founded for the specific reasons I mentioned, but the cold war played a factor too. Here is one of the EU's current emblems which say it all really:


    All other countries entering into the Euro were exchanged with current exchange rates. Can you explain how in the world that gives Germany an advantage as surely the name given to the currency has little effect on its value? With time wealth will even out, with free movement of people and money how can't it or why wouldn't it?

    Because the rate of exchange between the mark into the Euro was a near perfect conversion rate of 1:1. No other country had that.

    The EU isn't perfect by a long shot but I'm not sure we'll ever make it alone. In the grand scheme of things I dont think sovereignty is the be all and end all, in fact I think the EU would be in a better position if we actually had a clear goal of being united into one big state like USA with a federal government and a state one for each country.

    It won't work. We're not America. Unfortunately, in the 70s when the UK joined the EEC, our people were never told that the EEC was always envisioned to be far more than just a trading bloc.

  • The EU is a monster, aided and abetted by our own politicians. They disregard their own treaties with impunity, when it suits them.

    Democracy was destroyed the day Heath took us into the EEC, and politicians have lied to us from that day in order to keep us there. Europe may be powerful under the EU, but it's a dictatorial power. They have total disregard for the people of Europe. This disregard will result in civil war, or worse and all the money the EU takes from the people won't be used to help the people, but will be used to gain more power and create an even bigger monster.

    At the moment the nation state is still far more powerful than the EU, but we have seen examples of that changing, especially during the 2008 financial crisis onwards.

  • All other countries entering into the Euro were exchanged with current exchange rates. Can you explain how in the world that gives Germany an advantage as surely the name given to the currency has little effect on its value? With time wealth will even out, with free movement of people and money how can't it or why wouldn't it?

    A common currency cannot work among such disparate economies UNLESS the benefit of those who gain an advantage is shared. Even if countries were willing to share their benefits, it doesn't work well. Even in the UK which is much smaller and easier to manage the redistribution of money (ie. the Barnett formula) just doesn't create any goodwill or happiness. It creates resentment from both the recipients and the donors.

    Any federalisation has to be with the consent of it's people, and without that, resentment will grow and grow, as is happening in the EU now.

    EDIT: back to the Euro. The euro is undervalued for Germany, but overvalued for the other EZ countries and the all methods of rebalancing the currency have been removed so the overvalued currency (for all except Germany) is killing the weaker economies and they have no way to recover, other than ditching the euro, but that will also kill their economies as they can no longer afford to buy back their own currency as the exchange rate for their original currency has taken a nosedive. It was a trap, like forcing someone to buy high and sell low. It would bankrupt their country.

    There were plenty of warnings that this would happen, but the common currency is vital for the EU agenda and that takes precedence over anything else.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • The EEC was founded for the specific reasons I mentioned, but the cold war played a factor too. Here is one of the EU's current emblems which say it all really:


    Because the rate of exchange between the mark into the Euro was a near perfect conversion rate of 1:1. No other country had that.

    It won't work. We're not America. Unfortunately, in the 70s when the UK joined the EEC, our people were never told that the EEC was always envisioned to be far more than just a trading bloc.

    I love that EU propaganda, It kept the peace , not NATO !, BLOODY PRICELESS.?

  • I love that EU propaganda, It kept the peace , not NATO !, BLOODY PRICELESS.

    Precicely that, it makes for good optics that the EU was brought about for the prevention of war so this was the theme they used. However, it was needed as a giant counterweight to the economic influence of the communist Soviets. That doesn't make as good a poster though!

    When we look at the power of the Euro it has no bearing on its worth the fact that any currency was at 1:1 ratio or any other ratio for that matter. Its worth depends on what that Euro can generally buy in terms of that countries everyday products that determines its value.

    Edited 2 times, last by Makemadam (January 23, 2019 at 5:15 PM).

  • A common currency cannot work among such disparate economies UNLESS the benefit of those who gain an advantage is shared.

    I would agree with you but, the advantage is shared which is the whole idea behind free movement, in that any citizen of an EU country is free to take advantage of the same economic benefits of his neighbour. How successful that has been or may be is another complex topic but the opportunity can't be ignored.

  • I would agree with you but, the advantage is shared which is the whole idea behind free movement, in that any citizen of an EU country is free to take advantage of the same economic benefits of his neighbour. How successful that has been or may be is another complex topic but the opportunity can't be ignored.

    I disagree. Movement of people cannot compensate those countries that have the weaker economies. It just makes them weaker, as has been demonstrated.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!