This kind of interpretation is the one which leads to these kinds of results. It's not Boris nor Farage. It was the system they voted against.
The problem is not the referendum or the people who vote in an undesired way, the problem is always the government.
Some random referendum about an issue that may have nothing to do with the government of the day is not the appropriate time to lash out at the government.
They voted for self-governance and sovereignty. Many had their own reasons and desires for that sovereignty, but that's what they voted for.
Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That is antithetical to democracy and good governance.
That's called a strawman argument. Of course no one would want to be part of such an org, if that was all there was to it. But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org (some of which were mentioned in this thread).
>> That's called a strawman argument. Of course no one would want to be part of such an org, if that was all there was to it.
And here I think you repeat the mistake discussed here: belittling people who don't agree with you.
We have the same here with no UKIP. Politicians have tried twice to get Norwegians into EU using dubious arguments and people mobilized broadly twice to avoid it.
Edit: removed "all kinds of" in font of dubious to be less hyperbolic.
In hindsight it turns out the "No"-side was right and had been speaking the truth: staying out of the EU was not a problem and has been advantageous.
Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to?
You defended this with:
while not mathematically correct this is what lots of people feel.
I object to your assertion that lies should stand unchallenged just because they illustrate what people feel, especially when it is lies that informed their feelings in the first place. I don't care enough about the Norway situation to involve myself in that.
Another commenter posted http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ , I suggest you take a look at that page and count how many of those myths originated in English "newspapers".
For one, because the political organization benefits them? Control is not the only desirable property of an organization.
Furthermore, the UK did not have zero control over the EU. It had one commissioner (the same amount as any other member state), and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) -- So your question misrepresents the situation. If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time.
Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK.
And when did the people of the UK have a chance to vote him in? I must have missed that election.
> and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany)
I must have missed this election as well!
> If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time.
I was quite articulate, thank you. The problem really is that when people such as yourself are incapable of making a coherent argument in turn, they resort to passive/aggressive nonsense like you're displaying here.
> Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK.
Care to expand on this?
The reason people feel they don't have a say in the EU is because they keep voting for UKIP, whose entire mandate was to make the EU look bad by racking up expenses and not doing anything.
The gall of Farage when he was campaigning for the fishermen during the referendum was astounding. He attended 1, ONE, out of 42 fisheries council meetings while he was an MEP and he was on the committee. Then he turns around and says that it was the EU that screwed our fishing industry.
No, he betrayed the fishing industry just to make the EU look bad.
I want Commisiooners that are appointed by a president that is elected by the parliament (that's just how the German government works) or a similar system, but such a system would take too much power away from the governments of the member states (and give too much power to democratically elected EU institutions like the parliament) and as such was, while discussed, always disliked by members like the UK.
The EU is structured the way it is because the (elected) member state governments want to preserve their power and influence. They don't want some other democratically elected EU institution taking away their power. Commissioners are basically member state government surrogates. And this doesn't even yet touch upon the fact that hardly anything in the EU gets done without member states' governments direct involvement, either the Head's or the ministers (all democratically legitimated, by the way).
You are lacking a very basic level of understanding of how the EU works and why it is structured the way it is. Member state governments typically actually have a problem with democratically electing more people in the EU. They would much rather just send someone they appoint or go themselves (for obvious reasons). You are calling for something the UK has always blocked.
Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament? Democratically elected? Seats assigned proportionally? The last election was in 2014.
Norway: they are not a member of the EU but a part of the common market. That gives them the option to opt out of some things (but not even most things and especially not central ones like freedom of movement of labour), but they still have to pay membership fees and get no say when the rules are decided on.
Thank you for educating me.
> You are calling for something the UK has always blocked.
I think you're confusing the populace at large with their representatives. That is exactly the distinction I was trying to make. You can have a desire to not be a part of an institution that was designed by the very representatives you elected.
> Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament?
Based on my reading of the subject, they can't introduce legislation? Merely vote on it? And if they approve, another body which is not elected, must also approve before legislation is enacted?
You didn't. You voted for Cameron, and he nominated Lord Hill. I suggest you take it up with Westminster if you wanted to vote directly:
http://www.politico.eu/article/jonathan-hill-to-be-uks-commi...
I must have missed this election as well!
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27039093
resort to passive/aggressive nonsense like you're displaying here.
Aww. You were still wrong though, and were attacking the first commenter that pointed this out to you.
Care to expand on this?
If the UK wants to keep access to the EU single market (the EEA, European Economic Area), it can still do so through membership of the EFTA (European Free Trade Area). Membership of the EFTA requires a membership fee, likely less than the EU "tax". But it also means that the UK is no longer in a position to influence EU product regulations directly.
The first links I could find, they look quite comprehensive but I can't really judge their contents:
http://euquestion.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-cost-of-eu-member...
https://medium.com/@WhiteWednesday/the-norway-option-some-bo...
The primary problem for the UK is that free movement of people is a nonconditional part of the single market treaty, which seems to be the very idea that was the focal point of the leave campaign. So it's not a certainty that this deal will fly in the UK. Switzerland, for example, does not partake in the EEA but still has to abide by the Free Movement clause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_U...
I honestly doubt that the UK (fifth largest economy in the world) will not be able to get a significantly better deal than Norway.
Just look at how many exceptions and special conditions they previously received from EU treaties.
One of the reasons they are such a large economy is because they are the financial gateway to Europe. If your global rank is conditional on having single market access to the EU, you can't really use that as a bargaining power for getting access to that same market...
But yes, they should be able to negotiate a better deal than Norway.
The Brexit vote won because more people believed the current system is bad for them.
Btw, people keep saying half of UK want to stay in, which is not true.
Roughly 1/3 of eligible voters voted for exit. 1/3 voted for staying. And 1/3 didn't care enough to vote.
So in reality about 1/3 feel strong about staying.
In a nation where 13% of the UK population is foreign born.
It's not really relevant to make a comparison with the total population, and when 70% of the population polled, it is probably more than representative of the full picture anyway. If it's distributed randomly across the country, the remaining 30% would have voted in the same manner.
And politicians are elected with elections, not polling for a reason.