This was never in doubt amongst anyone credible/not being paid to obfuscate and turn the sideshow into something important.
The actual debate was always wether it mattered Vs all the other times they interfere and all the actors interfering. And then the question is what to do something about it. Previous government spent all the time sending media around in circles quibbling about process.
It was kind of obvious at the time. I thought it could be an argument for having a confirmation, "are you sure you want this?" vote and went on a couple of marches but no, we have the glorious thing we have.
It was a non-binding referendum. It don’t really understand why that exists but it seems kinda silly to do a non-binding one followed by a binding one.
The UK has only had 3 referendums nationally, and all have been non-binding. Constitutionally, they have to be, as Parliament is sovereign and can pass any laws it wants, it is never bound by previous laws.
However, that doesn't mean politicians can ignore the outcome. The reason David Cameron offered the referendum was because his party's voters were being wooed away by UKIP and a vote split would mean both lost to Labour. UKIP got 3.1% of the vote in 2010 but 12.6% of the vote in 2015! As UKIP voters are mainly ex-Tory voters, and the Tories won over Labour in 2015 with only 6% more voteshare, you can see the direction of travel.
Cameron was also a betting man and had vanquished his enemies (the Lib Dems and SNP) by letting them have referendums and then had his government campaign strongly against them. The public voted "no" in both cases. So one more gamble of asking the public couldn't hurt, right?
The same dynamics were in play after the result, the Tories couldn't ignore the "will of the people" or they'd lose more votes to UKIP and never get elected again.
The reason there wasn't something like "here's the plan, do you want it or not?" is because the the EU designed Article 50 (leaving) to be painful, to deter leaving. It will not discuss what your post-leaving relationship will be until you confirm you will leave. This simple and effective policy maintains the integrity of the bloc! It would be chaos if member states continually announced they wanted to leave, started negotiating their post-EU future, then just cancelled it if they didn't like what they negotiated.... then announced they'd leave again to re-roll the dice. It would would waste everyone's time.
But because of that, and the fact the government didn't want to leave, it left no official vision of the post-EU future, so that void was filled by multiple mutually-exclusive fantasies put forward by pro-leave campaign groups, ultimately none of which was fulfilled. But that tantalising bullshit of all upsides and no downsides (and no fine details) was just enough to tip the scales in favour of leaving.
How is the EURO going for European members like France or Spain ?
Some businesses not people are winning, the vast majority are stuck on a train that is speeding towards a crash. Nobody is winning in this new world of consolidation, the average person always loses. The gains of peace and prosperity after WW2 are all being erased. I dont think the Spanish people who cant afford to live in their own home cities do not appreciate the mass tourism economy. Then again with or without these modern economies, the result is always things get worse.
It turns out that an opt-out isn't strictly necessary.
New EU members must agree to join the Euro as soon as they meet the Maastricht Convergence Criteria, one of which is that their currency must have been part of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years... but there's not actually any requirement to join the ERM!
Countries including Sweden, Poland, and Czechia have all taken advantage of this to retain their own currency - and the UK could do the same.
The other main opt-out held by the UK was around the Social Chapter, but that had already been given up in the late 1990s.
You fail to appreciate that consequences are more than one level deep. Sure airbnb was the fail nail in the coffin, but there are many others factors that enabled mass tourism.
The modern global economy amongst its concentration of corporations is also concentrating jobs in fewer and fewer cities, which of course causes far more housing problems.
Obama "interfered" by telling the unvarnished truth; the US wouldn't rush to make a deal with the UK if it left the EU, contrary to what some Brexiteers were claiming.
I don't think this is being argued in good faith. I don't think Nigel Farage in particular (among the rabid Leave campaigners quoted to substantiate said backlash _from Leavers_) has changed his position. And I also don't think that Russian "interference" in the sense that Andy Burnham means it is simply the making of public statements that this crowd was opposed to (just as Russian interference in Trump 2016 was also more material).
It is clear that is probably looking for more powers to implement Digital IDs, censor and further restrict the internet
> "Burnham did not provide further details about the type or extent of Moscow's activity during the Brexit referendum."
Some people still have trouble understanding half of the population can disagree with you
There were dozens of TV debates, government politicians making statements on TV, news interview, workplace heated debates, family dinner debates
The EU centralization scepticism has always been present
If anyone wants a conspiracy maybe try why was the remain campaign so bad, bad arguments, and even with most debates and interviews biased to help them, they always came across tepid
Labour are leading a concerted misinformation campaign to push us back in to Europe ... Where members of the union are going bust ... Just like we will under Burning cash Burnham
The actual debate was always wether it mattered Vs all the other times they interfere and all the actors interfering. And then the question is what to do something about it. Previous government spent all the time sending media around in circles quibbling about process.
reply