Labour's attempts to differentiate their position on Brexit and specifically

[Peter]

[QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166763]

You've described what people didn't want, without describing what they did want.

And that bit is rather important.

Unfortunately, it isn't what they were asked. They were asked yes or no, they voted no. Some of us pointed out beforehand that it was a little silly to ask people to vote for something they weren't allowed to see but that is what we got.

While its dangerous to interpret too much from a yes or no vote I find it absurd that anyone could deny that freedom of movement was a key issue within the no vote.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166768]

Unfortunately, it isn't what they were asked. They were asked yes or no, they voted no. Some of us pointed out beforehand that it was a little silly to ask people to vote for something they weren't allowed to see but that is what we got.

While its dangerous to interpret too much from a yes or no vote I find it absurd that anyone could deny that freedom of movement was a key issue within the no vote.

Anything other than a binary choice would have been meaningless, though. It was first necessary to establish democratically that we no longer wished to be in the EU and only from there could we work out what form that would take. To have hedged the vote about with various options would have been to dilute it to the point of worthlessness. Equally, the vote that took us in was binary and offered no nuance (to the point of dishonesty, in fact), so it was only fair that the vote to take us equally simple.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166784]

Anything other than a binary choice would have been meaningless, though. It was first necessary to establish democratically that we no longer wished to be in the EU and only from there could we work out what form that would take. To have hedged the vote about with various options would have been to dilute it to the point of worthlessness. Equally, the vote that took us in was binary and offered no nuance (to the point of dishonesty, in fact), so it was only fair that the vote to take us equally simple.

Funnily enough, I thought the question was unfair on the leave campaign. Obviously you cant spell out a deal but issues like the single market and free movement are big enough to have been pulled out from the detail. I would argue they are almost implicit anyway.

The vote to go in was to join a completely different institution. It lost any legitimacy decades ago.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166789]

Funnily enough, I thought the question was unfair on the leave campaign. Obviously you cant spell out a deal but issues like the single market and free movement are big enough to have been pulled out from the detail. I would argue they are almost implicit anyway.

The vote to go in was to join a completely different institution. It lost any legitimacy decades ago.

What would be the point on voting for those things without first knowing whether people want to remain in the EU or not? Equally, us voting unilaterally to keep things that the EU isn't likely to grant is pretty meaningless.

Also, people are always going to say that - if they can - they'd prefer to be in the single market. At the same time, though, they will generally vote against free movement if it means high levels of immigration, without recognising the fact that those two wishes are incompatible.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166796]

What would be the point on voting for those things without first knowing whether people want to remain in the EU or not? Equally, us voting unilaterally to keep things that the EU isn't likely to grant is pretty meaningless.

Also, people are always going to say that - if they can - they'd prefer to be in the single market. At the same time, though, they will generally vote against free movement if it means high levels of immigration, without recognising the fact that those two wishes are incompatible.

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

[Monty92]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166797]

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

This was explained, endlessly.

[Ash]

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

It would have helped if the people that decided to call the referendum had formulated a plan to enact in the event of the outcome being Leave, and to have explained that plan. As it was it never occurred to them that they could lose.

A soft (fake) Brexit where we remain in the single market, keep freedom of movement, retain the large net contribution but are politically excluded wouldn't be much of a brexit, imo. More of a vassalisation, perhaps.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166797]

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

Well I would argue that those things were said repeatedly by both sides during the campaign, but OK. Let's say you did that. By the same token, would it not have been necessary to include similar in the Remain vote? Making clear, for instance, by voting Remain, are you signing up for 'Ever Closer Union', the increasing movement of sovereignty away from Westminster and the future possibility of an EU military? After all, what's sauce for the goose...

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166801]

Well I would argue that those things were said repeatedly by both sides during the campaign, but OK. Let's say you did that. By the same token, would it not have been necessary to include similar in the Remain vote? Making clear, for instance, by voting Remain, are you signing up for 'Ever Closer Union', the increasing movement of sovereignty away from Westminster and the future possibility of an EU military? After all, what's sauce for the goose...

Well the terms of remaining were far clearer than leaving but I take your point. I do think it would have been better to be slightly clearer about the leaving options before the vote, if not in the actual question. The problem was there was no organisation to speak for it, just a loose collection of political oddities and opportunists.