What do you think now?

Absolutely Joelsnan well said.

Oops! Previous post intended for Railman

Our present problems should not have been seen as a 'challenge to the UK sovereignty', since back in 1971, the then Tory Government accepted the progress towards greater social, political and economic union.

Again, on page 8 (para 28) of the White Paper, it is stated: "But we will be joining at a moment when we shall be able to influence the process of development. This will also be true of progress towards economic and monetary union."

Can you please explain where, in your second paragraph (the excerpt from the white paper) where it mentions anything about social and political union...or was this written in invisible ink?

The vast majority who voted to enter the Common Market did not vote for a Federal European Union and have been voicing their anxieties and asking for a referendum since Maastricht.

Railman
I think you will find that the EU most definately cannot grant funding directly into any country. The UK is a sovereign country and all funding has to have the approval of the government either through an appointed agency or bidding process. The same applies to all EU member countries. If you research, you will find that a number of regeneration areas in the UK actually did fall out of EU funding perameters as 'poorer' countries were admitted, this directly impacted on EU funds available to UK regeneration and Education projects and had nothing to do with the government reducing availability.
The information is freely available.

It's not the best of three a result is a result

Ellenvannin Sixteen and seventeen year olds given the vote and yes it will be their future but based on their sixteen and seventeen years experience when possibly their own parents were still in junior school when the UK entered the common market Nooooooooo thank you.

Petra did our democratically elected representatives get to vote on te Maastricht treaty ?

Let's not just cite Liverpool as a city lifted 'out of the mire' by the EU.
There are many cities who've been the recipients of the EU largesse although I know that, in part at least, that largesse has come from our own UK pockets.
Yes, it (Liverpool) had and still has pockets of less salubrious areas but even those areas had a particular 'charm' or 'vibe'if one can call it that.
The Granby Street area, Kensington, Anfield and Everton, not to mention Little Jerusalem and The Holy Land (streets named after biblical 'characters')
The salt of the earth walked those streets (even after taking the wheels off the cars of the more fortunate)

newnanny - not completing, or paying for our commitments might not look so good if we try to establish trade deals elsewhere though will it

petra - my post stated that we signed up initially to the EEC, and it was made perfectly clear that closer union between European people, including furthering economic and social progress by removing barriers.

The ultimate outcome was the EU, underpinned by the treaty of Maastricht.

In fact the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, establishing the EEC clearly states that as a basic objective of the community. (Page 3 of the July 1971 UK White Paper repeats this under the heading "purposes of the Communities").

Our present problems should not have been seen as a 'challenge to the UK sovereignty', since back in 1971, the then Tory Government accepted the progress towards greater social, political and economic union.

Again, on page 8 (para 28) of the White Paper, it is stated: "But we will be joining at a moment when we shall be able to influence the process of development. This will also be true of progress towards economic and monetary union."

On the same page (para 29): "We shall have full opportunity to make our views heard and our influence felt in the councils of the community"

Perhaps it has been in the later years, when some of the more reactionary MEPs, have been elected from the UK, that owe have failed to make our influence felt.

So, back in the 1970s, we knew that there was to be progress towards more unification across the countries of Europe, and we accepted that with the referendum.

Admittedly, that was at a time when we still had considerable core industries, and had only just begun to see the benefits of North Sea oil and gas. Such a pity we were unable to do more with our assets.

Remain, did then......would now!
The whole thing is heading to really damage the UK, in ways we can’t even imagine yet. But that’s just my opinion.

Joelsnan - sorry but I have to disagree with you regarding funding, the use of ESF and Objective 1 funds in Merseyside was not subject to bidding in the way you describe. Projects required to be justified, with objectives and measurable outcomes, and monitored by existing UK Regional Development Agencies.

I was privileged to work on a number of projects for my own clients in the region, who qualified for funding support. This enabled them to recruit and grow businesses in the digital sector very successfully.

It was the UK Government after 2010 that started to introduce rationing through bidding processes, after agreement with the EU on the application of funds for economic development of these regions.

They closed down organisations such as the NWDA, and replaced them initially by direct ministerial controls for the distribution of funds. This was followed by the establishment of LEPs, which simply added further bureaucracy into the processes, and of course bids

The UK government in the 1980s and 1990s essentially asset stripped the manufacturing base of the UK, to fund tax cuts. Not just for the rich, but for everyone. The outsourcing and offshoring of production largely followed the patterns established by the likes of James Dyson, who removed his manufacturing to the far east, and certainly not in eastern Europe.

GillT57, the Lords has stated that legally we do not owe the EU a penny.

I voted to leave the EU in referendum and I would vote to leave again, as would everyone I know who voted to leave. We need a Brexiteer to get us a good deal. May is absolutely useless.

How many of the 16 and 17 year olds actually know about what we would be asking them to vote for? At that age most really aren't interested in politics. I have a son who has just turned 18 and who has been interested in politics from a young age and it is noticeable that he is alone in that. When talking to his friends at the time of the Referendum, very few of them were interested or could argue either way.
I think there would be anarchy if we had another Referendum which gave us a different result and I don't think the EU would give us an easy ride if we changed our minds now. The whole thing has been handled very badly by all parties.

I would vote stay again and yes we should have another referendum based on what we now know and 16/17 year old should also have the vote, its their future not ours.

I really cannot be bothered to go through every one of the posts on this thread although I have read the first 3 or 4 pages. I now begin to realise why we are in the mess we are in, there is an awful lot of frankly bonkers reasons given for why people voted to leave. Can I just point out one thing which really, really annoys me? We cannot just walk away from the EU, from our commitments, without paying what we are responsible for. These decisions were made while we were members and we are morally and legally bound to pay them. Ironically, a lot of this will be pensions for people like Farage. Putting it simply; if you have bought a house on a joint mortgage or rent a house on a joint tenancy and then walk away 'without a deal' you will never get another mortgage or another tenancy. To say otherwise shows a terrifying lack of fiscal knowledge.

nannypiano Losing the NHS has nothing to do with the EU. It is a calculated decision by Tory politicians who want to introduce a US-style insurance system, which will mean we pay more, get less, and someone, somewhere, makes a profit out of your misfortune. Don't blame the EU for your fantasy, please.

Railman
We did not sign up to the eu!!!
We signed up to the common market.
The eu was formed in the Maarstrict treaty, which we never had a vote on!!!
Then john major lied to Parliament to push it through. It's all there online if you care to find it.

I would vote YES again. Why would anyone change their mind after all the spiteful, nasty clauses the EU seems determined to hold us to. Anything to make our leaving as difficult and soul destroying as they can. These little jumped up bureaucrats so puffed up with their own importance squealing about losing one of their biggest cash cows. OUT now - deal or no deal.

joelsnan
Another great post from you ???????

I would still vote to leave as I don't want to be ruled by an unelected bunch of bureaucrats in brussels. Of course it is going to be hard and Theresa May has made it harder by not listening to either of her 2 Brexit secretaries. I ant Brexit not a fudge

Yes, I most certainly would vote to leave the EU again and again. Despite remainer propaganda to the contrary, I was not influenced by arguments on either side ( truth or lies on both sides). I made my decision based on experience of life within the EU since 1975.

We had a peoples' vote. The people said we want to leave.
The people did not say we want to leave in part. The people did not say we want to remain attached in any way. The people said OUT.

Sorry I shouldn’t have replied, read OP again which asked for Brexiteers to respond. I was & am a remainer.

EllanVannin
being as the EU have financed many areas in this country including lifting Liverpool out of the mire where do you propose the money comes from to continue building this country up when local councils are too broke to remove weeds that are flourishing on our pavements etc ?

How do you think Liverpool got into the myre? Mainly through our industry being outsourced and any remaining industry having to compete with cheap tarrif free products from European countries with lower standards of living than the UK.
The EU has not 'paid' for Liverpool to be prettified (which is just wallpapering over the deprivation).
The UK pays billions annually to the EU it then has to submit bids to get some of it back to undertake any regeneration work. The EU cannot just give funding where it thinks fit it has to go through the government representatives within each country. It should be noted that as more countries that can be exploited are admitted to the EU, the regeneration funding approved for the UK has declined.. Funding is redirected to the new member countries to improve infrastrucure so that manufacturing can be diverted there to exploit low labour costs. As a result of this, even Soctland pays more to the EU than it receives in funding.
The EU is not a fairy godmother, every pound returned to the UK has to be bid for and every pound returned is subject to an administration fee creamed off to fund the behemoth.
The EU money will not disappear when we leave it will stay here and there will be more of it, no funding of projects to undermine more of our industrial base, no funding of an admin heavy organisation, no funding of countries that actually quite dislike us.