E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Not doing good on what Brexit represented fall under the category of bad governance. I say fall under and not fall into, since not doing good on what it represented falls under a sub-category of what constitutes as...bad governance.

I wouldn't call them fools, unless by fools you mean blue-eyed enough to trust that the people they hired to govern them would honor the trust agreement and not breach that trust.

They were no more fools than those who voted to join the European Union after they had been told it would only be a trade union and nothing more, had they known the long term plans the politicians had in mind for their project I doubt they would have voted to join.

 

Technically they got what they asked for, they got their fish...

Maybe next referendum they'll ask for someone willing to buy it

 

Given that's the Express, it may or may not be true...

 

It proabaly is, they've banned us & the EU from their waters;
https://www.fishfarmermagazine.com/...Oslo is looking for a,with the EU and Britain.

 

Norway's agreement is done on an annual basis iirc.

As such with us leaving the fishing agreement now becomes trilateral or two bilateral agreements for Norway.

This was alwas going to happen with us leaving adding a new variable that needs resolving.

 

I thought it had been resolved back in September when they & us agreed and signed a deal;
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-b...reement-with-uk-ahead-of-brexit-idUKKBN26L13A

So what's the hold up now?

 

I've lost track TBH but then we've done deals, changed deals, threatened to break international law on deals and so on.

No idea where we stood on it in the end.

It is funny though, we seem to be preoccupied on a small sector of the economy when larger sections haven't been sorted.

 

Possibly if someone makes multiple conflicting promises, then they're bullshitting you.

Except that they were told it was a political union. There were in fact great, detailed debates about just that during the 1975 EEC Referendum campaign (with the "No" campaign making an especially big deal about it). On 2nd May 1967 the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson said to the House of Commons:

In 1972 the then Prime Minster Edward Heath said:

Also on page 5 of the 1975 referendum pamphlet:

OUR PARTNERS
IN EUROPE

With Britain, there are nine other members of the Common Market. The others are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands.

Their combined population is over 250 million.

The Market is one of the biggest concentrations of industrial and trading power in the world. Its has vast resources of skill, experience and inventiveness.

The aims of the Common Market are:

• To bring together the peoples of Europe.
  
• To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
  
• To promote growth and boost world trade.
  
• To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
  
• To help maintain peace and freedom.

 

@Nexxo
I don't know how involved the people at the time would have been in those debates, before they voted.

As for what the pamphlet states it pretty much points to the benefits of trade as far as I can tell.

Sounds benign enough.

 

Even though it's technically a lot easier right now to engage political ideas and discussions as well as accessing all the (mis-)information one could possibly hope to find, thanks to the internet mainly, I don't think the average person today has a better and more realistic grip on what's going on in politics compared to the 70s.

I honestly doubt people care enough to really sort through the information, if they can be bothered reading any of it at all. That situation hasn't improved from way back, people might be even less interested today, to be honest.

 

You said that "they had been told it would only be a trade union and nothing more". That is clearly untrue.

It also says:

• To bring together the peoples of Europe.
• To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
• To promote growth and boost world trade.
• To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
• To help maintain peace and freedom

Four out of five points have nothing to do with trade specifically.

 

Surprised it took this long, maybe.

 

You might be onto something, there's also more distractions these days.

Was there a public debate with people participating having the project explained to them, or did they just a hand out pamphlets, or both?

Correct, but it does leave room for such an interpretation without too much creative thinking.

Trade brings people together, trade raises the living standards, trade helps poorer regions, trade helps maintain peace and freedom...

 

Same thing as with Christmas: it's always a surprise to a lot of people when it's 'suddenly' very close.

 

That's annoying, now the good lady has to pay more and fill in a customs form just to send things to her family.

Not the biggest change, obviously, just an extra layer of frickin time wasting tedium.