What can Canada learn from the Brexit Referendum if we ever leave NAFTA?

[Machjo]

The referendum question was:

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'

The possible answers were:

'Remain a member of the European Union'

'Leave the European Union'


I think the biggest mistake the question-writer or writers made was to make the 'Leave-the-European-Union' alternative so ambiguous since one could interpret it to mean anyone of at least six things:

1. sign an agreement similar to Norway's.

2. Sign an agreement similar to Switzerland's.

3. Sign an agreement similar to Turkey's.

4. Sign an agreement similar to Canada's.

5. Return to the present WTO rules.

6. Renegotiate the WTO rules to allow the UK to adopt unilateral free trade.

The above are just the ones that come to my mind and each is very different from the other. As a result, a vote to leave the EU was a vote to take leap into the dark with no idea what was to replace it. With the UK government having no clear idea of what the voters even intended to replace EU-membership with, how was it to negotiate a well-written deal with the EU in the short 2-year time frame that it had?

We can see now how the UK still hasn't progressed much and might walk away with no deal and still no clear idea of what it wants as an alternative.

If Canada should ever call a similar referendum, I would word it as follows:

Should Canada remain in NAFTA or adopt unilateral free trade?

Canada should remain in NAFTA.

Canada should adopt unilateral free trade.

Of course other possibilities exist too, but at least in the question above it would be clear not only whether or not Canadians wanted to remain in NAFTA but also what they would want to replace it with should they vote to leave it. In other words, they wouldn't be voting either for or against something (which leaves ambiguity as to what to replace it with), but rather for one of two things. Since they'd be voting for and not against something either way, it would therefore present Parliament with a way forward. If all Parliament knows is that Canadians want to leave NAFTA, it would tell it nothing about what we might want to replace it with. If we vote for something either way, then at least if we vote to leave NAFTA, we'd be giving Parliament a clear direction in which to move rather than just thrust it into the dark like the Brexit referendum did for the UK.

If ever Canada has a similar referendum, let's not repeat the UK's mistake and let's make sure we're voting for something either way and not just for or against something with no clear alternative.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Machjo

[Machjo]

I just sent my MP an e-mail:

Concerned that the US President could potentially give as little as six months’ notice to withdraw from NAFTA, I would like to propose a referendum question for the next federal election as follows:

Should Canada remain a member of NAFTA or should it adopt unilateral free trade?

1. Canada should remain a member of NAFTA.
2. Canada should adopt unilateral free trade.

I believe that the UK’s biggest mistake in the Brexit referendum was presenting a for-or-against referendum. One problem with a for-or-against referendum is that it presents no alternative to the ‘for’ and so no clear direction to the government should the people vote against. To avoid repeating the UK’s mistake, I would like to propose that Canada ensure that it present a referendum with two clear alternatives. That way, rather than vote for or against something with no clear alternative, Canadians could vote for one of two alternatives and so provide the government with some direction either way.


I don't necessarily expect that the government would adopt the same wording in a referendum presented at the same time as the next federal election, but I would hope that it would at least apply the principle of ensuring that we would be voting not for or against something but rather for two distinct alternatives whatever they may be so as to avoid falling into the Brexit trap.

[taxme]

22 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I just sent my MP an e-mail:

Concerned that the US President could potentially give as little as six months’ notice to withdraw from NAFTA, I would like to propose a referendum question for the next federal election as follows:

Should Canada remain a member of NAFTA or should it adopt unilateral free trade?

1. Canada should remain a member of NAFTA.
2. Canada should adopt unilateral free trade.

I believe that the UK’s biggest mistake in the Brexit referendum was presenting a for-or-against referendum. One problem with a for-or-against referendum is that it presents no alternative to the ‘for’ and so no clear direction to the government should the people vote against. To avoid repeating the UK’s mistake, I would like to propose that Canada ensure that it present a referendum with two clear alternatives. That way, rather than vote for or against something with no clear alternative, Canadians could vote for one of two alternatives and so provide the government with some direction either way.


I don't necessarily expect that the government would adopt the same wording in a referendum presented at the same time as the next federal election, but I would hope that it would at least apply the principle of ensuring that we would be voting not for or against something but rather for two distinct alternatives whatever they may be so as to avoid falling into the Brexit trap.

The UK did not make a mistake by wanting to leave the EU. The majority of the British people voted for and seemed to think that the EU was more of a problem and concern for the British people rather than of any use to them especially when it came to immigration. They got tired of the EU running Britain and the people voted to leave. Now the British government is trying to have another vote on Brexit despite what the British people have told them what they want done. They want out. And even before the British are allowed to leave the EU the EU is demanding that they have to accept some of the EU rules. And It is also starting to look like the traitorous MP's of Britain are trying to do a 180 on Brexit and are forcing another vote on the British people with no doubt the fix will be in and Britain will end up staying in the EU. This is why I always say and appears to be quite true that all politicians are pretty much all traitors to we the people. They have and show nothing but contempt for the people who pay their salaries. They have become the boss now and the people have become the slaves. 

The only thing that we the people can all expect from our dear leaders is for more government, more taxes, and less freedom. Shame on them. 

[Machjo]

9 minutes ago, taxme said:

The UK did not make a mistake by wanting to leave the EU. The majority of the British people voted for and seemed to think that the EU was more of a problem and concern for the British people rather than of any use to them especially when it came to immigration. They got tired of the EU running Britain and the people voted to leave. Now the British government is trying to have another vote on Brexit despite what the British people have told them what they want done. They want out. And even before the British are allowed to leave the EU the EU is demanding that they have to accept some of the EU rules. And It is also starting to look like the traitorous MP's of Britain are trying to do a 180 on Brexit and are forcing another vote on the British people with no doubt the fix will be in and Britain will end up staying in the EU. This is why I always say and appears to be quite true that all politicians are pretty much all traitors to we the people. They have and show nothing but contempt for the people who pay their salaries. They have become the boss now and the people have become the slaves. 

The only thing that we the people can all expect from our dear leaders is for more government, more taxes, and less freedom. Shame on them. 

The problem with the referendum was in its ambiguity. Yes it's clear that they voted to leave the EU, but for what? The British government is still trying to figure that out.

 

If instead of a for-or-against referendum, they had a referendum for one of two clear options, then the British people could have told the government not only what they didn't want but also what they wanted. If all the government knows is what they don't want, that says little of what they want, which could be one of many different possibilities. It was just too ambiguous.

[bush_cheney2004]

28 minutes ago, Machjo said:

The problem with the referendum was in its ambiguity. Yes it's clear that they voted to leave the EU, but for what? The British government is still trying to figure that out.

 

It is not clear to me why the possible actions of President Trump would prompt such a vote.   NAFTA already provides that any member may leave after six months notice...it is part of the agreement.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

31 minutes ago, Machjo said:

The problem with the referendum was in its ambiguity. Yes it's clear that they voted to leave the EU, but for what? The British government is still trying to figure that out.

 

It is not clear to me why the possible actions of President Trump would prompt such a vote.   NAFTA already provides that any member may leave after six months notice...it is part of the agreement.   It has been that way for 25 years.

 

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It is not clear to me why the possible actions of President Trump would prompt such a vote.   NAFTA already provides that any member may leave after six months notice...it is part of the agreement.   It has been that way for 25 years.

 

Yes, but leave for what? WTO rules? To negotiate a new agreement? Unilateral free trade? And those are just the more obvious alternatives. Leaving NAFTA is just like leaving the EU. It doesn't answer the question of what to replace it with. So with that in mind, a referendum presenting two clear options for the population could help to focus the Government. For example, in a referendum between remaining in NAFTA or adopting unilateral free trade, should the majority vote to remain in NAFTA, that would send a clear message to the Canadian government to find some way to convince Trump to remain in NAFTA even if it means revising it. Should the majority vote for unilateral free trade, again it would direct the government's attention towards a clearly-defined goal. Either way, it would focus the government's efforts. Right now we're in a trade war while NAFTA is theoretically still in force. That just brings confusion.

[Machjo]

The following article reveals the poor wording of the Brexit question for example:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/b56b2b36-1835-37c6-8152-b175cf077ae8

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Yes, but leave for what? WTO rules? To negotiate a new agreement? Unilateral free trade? And those are just the more obvious alternatives. Leaving NAFTA is just like leaving the EU. It doesn't answer the question of what to replace it with. So with that in mind, a referendum presenting two clear options for the population could help to focus the Government.

 

Joining NAFTA did not require such a referendum...in fact...efforts to require a popular vote were ignored because NAFTA would have failed to pass in both countries.  

Continuing to be dependent on NAFTA even when it has provisions for ending it built into the agreement should be addressed regardless of what may follow.   The U.S. and Mexico are under no obligation to continue NAFTA.

 

Quote

For example, in a referendum between remaining in NAFTA or adopting unilateral free trade, should the majority vote to remain in NAFTA, that would send a clear message to the Canadian government to find some way to convince Trump to remain in NAFTA even if it means revising it. Should the majority vote for unilateral free trade, again it would direct the government's attention towards a clearly-defined goal. Either way, it would focus the government's efforts. Right now we're in a trade war while NAFTA is theoretically still in force. That just brings confusion.

 

Canada is in a "trade war" because of tariff and non-tariff barriers irrespective of NAFTA.    It is not just about Canada.

 

 

[Machjo]

32 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Continuing to be dependent on NAFTA even when it has provisions for ending it built into the agreement should be addressed regardless of what may follow.   The U.S. and Mexico are under no obligation to continue NAFTA.

 

 

I agree. One advantage of unilateral free trade for Canada is that it makes Canada less vulnerable to US tariffs and subsidies. For example, the US might decide to impose moderate tariffs to compensate for Canadian manufacturers' sudden access to low-cost quality goods from around the world and Canada could accept that as reasonable.

Of course unilateral free trade does not have to preclude the possibility of some kind of free trade agreement to supplement it such as to promote common packaging and labeling, agricultural, health, and other safety regulations. But Canada would have dropped all tariffs and subsidies unilaterally, so any future trade agreement could focus more on removing unintentional barriers to trade.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Machjo

[bush_cheney2004]

13 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I agree. One advantage of unilateral free trade for Canada is that it makes Canada less vulnerable to US tariffs and subsidies. For example, the US might decide to impose moderate tariffs to compensate for Canadian manufacturer's sudden access to low-cost quality goods from around the world and Canada could accept that as reasonable.

 

But I think that is the entire point of today's imbalance and dependence on the U.S. export market.   

If Canada does not learn from this experience to fix the domestic and international barriers to trade, then it never will.    Reacting to the policies of a foreign country does not a trade policy make.    Canada should have  diversified exports instead of doubling down on the USA (i.e. FTA/NAFTA).

[GostHacked]

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But I think that is the entire point of today's imbalance and dependence on the U.S. export market.   

If Canada does not learn from this experience to fix the domestic and international barriers to trade, then it never will.    Reacting to the policies of a foreign country does not a trade policy make.    Canada should have  diversified exports instead of doubling down on the USA (i.e. FTA/NAFTA).

What does the US export other than terrorism?

[Queenmandy85]

There is no need for a referendum in Canada. We wish to remain in NAFTA and it is President Trump's decision whether or not NAFTA continues.

Unilateral free trade means we allow imports free of tariffs but our exports would be subject to tariffs. Not a balanced trading situation.

We do not do referendums in the country. We have had two in our history and both were polarizing. Brexit should never have been put to a referendum. Prime Minister Cameron took that course to quell the whining of some backbenchers, on the assumption that the remain side would win easily. Many Remain voters did not bother to vote for the same reason. Issues such as this are the jurisdiction of the Crown and Parliament. 

[cannuck]

What NAFTA DID do was organize a trade bloc that was equivalent to the EEC.   Within that bloc, though, the US was not in as good a position as it could have been, but most of all to go it alone they lose the considerable resources of Canada and low cost labour of Mexico to counter not so much the EU, but the HUGE rising bloc of Asia/China.  BUT: the US problem with trade imbalance was due to the free market of the US deciding to buy cheap Chinese junk rather than support more expensive domestic products (no longer brands, as they are now mostly outsourced for product).   When you shift your economy to one based on Casino Capitalism instead of investing in Main Street, you bring your problems on yourself.

The question of the OP was quite appropriate, and the way the UK went about it was probably not a smart move.

BTW: the US exports a LOT of things, but surprisingly, the largest of all is entertainment!

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Unilateral free trade means we allow imports free of tariffs but our exports would be subject to tariffs. Not a balanced trading situation.

 

Even if Canada adopted unilateral free trade and the US slapped a 10% tariff on all Canadian exports to it, that would just push the CAD down to equilibrium. It could benefit Canadian travel industries for example. Or software sold online that doesn't need to cross borders, etc. To buy a US product, a Canadian must buy USD. but if Americans want to buy fewer CAD due to tariffs making buying Canadian less attractive to them, then it becomes more expensive for Canadians to buy USD, and so tariffs have a natural way of boomeranging back to hit the tariffing country in the head in the end. The basic law of comparative advantage.

[taxme]

15 hours ago, Machjo said:

The problem with the referendum was in its ambiguity. Yes it's clear that they voted to leave the EU, but for what? The British government is still trying to figure that out.

 

If instead of a for-or-against referendum, they had a referendum for one of two clear options, then the British people could have told the government not only what they didn't want but also what they wanted. If all the government knows is what they don't want, that says little of what they want, which could be one of many different possibilities. It was just too ambiguous.

As far as I am concerned the people voted to exit the EU. Then it's get back to doing what is needed to run a country without the EU telling the British people as to how they will run their own country. Canada works well without being a member of the EU so where is there a problem here? The UK can still make trade deals with the EU if they want too. 

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

As far as I am concerned the people voted to exit the EU. Then it's get back to doing what is needed to run a country without the EU telling the British people as to how they will run their own country. Canada works well without being a member of the EU so where is there a problem here? The UK can still make trade deals with the EU if they want too. 

the problem though is that they're divided between the Norwegian, Swiss, Turkish, and Canadian models or just going back to WTO rules or renegotiating the WTO agreement to go to unilateral free trade. And those are just some possibilities all of which involve leaving the EU but each extremely different from the other. The referendum said they want to leave the EU, but not which of the myriad alternatives they want. As a result, May has little clarity as to what she should even be negotiating.

[taxme]

27 minutes ago, Machjo said:

the problem though is that they're divided between the Norwegian, Swiss, Turkish, and Canadian models or just going back to WTO rules or renegotiating the WTO agreement to go to unilateral free trade. And those are just some possibilities all of which involve leaving the EU but each extremely different from the other. The referendum said they want to leave the EU, but not which of the myriad alternatives they want. As a result, May has little clarity as to what she should even be negotiating.

Well then, if May has a problem with negotiating then she should hand that problem over to the private sector and stay the hell out of any  negotiating of trade deals. Why does the government have to be involved in trade deals anyway? Is it because big corporations want it that way? The government pretty much screws up everything they get themselves involved in. Let the free market roll as it may and leave it up to the private sector to make their own deals. For the governments to be involved in trade deals is just another way of blowing the taxpayer's tax dollars by politicians who get to travel world wide and get to eat and sleep in fancy hotels. Did anyone ever try to figure out as too how much tax dollars are being blown just by Kristin Freeland alone and her back and forth trade/tariff deals yet? it has to be running into the millions and millions. Millions that could be better spent on Canada and for Canadians. 

Is there anyone here think that having the government involved in trade deals is a good and great thing and deal for Canadians or Americans? For me the private sector could probably do a better job if trade deals were left up to the private sector. Just wondering. 

[Michael Hardner]

A trade deal is a deal between governments to reduce their involved in trade and let the free market decide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_agreement

This is why conservatives are having trouble with Trump and his supporters adding government tariffs to trade.  Since you don't seem to be following the history of this, tariffs have been most recently been supported by the left to shore up domestic unions.  Eg the NDP

[Machjo]

4 hours ago, taxme said:

Well then, if May has a problem with negotiating then she should hand that problem over to the private sector and stay the hell out of any  negotiating of trade deals. Why does the government have to be involved in trade deals anyway? Is it because big corporations want it that way? The government pretty much screws up everything they get themselves involved in. Let the free market roll as it may and leave it up to the private sector to make their own deals. For the governments to be involved in trade deals is just another way of blowing the taxpayer's tax dollars by politicians who get to travel world wide and get to eat and sleep in fancy hotels. Did anyone ever try to figure out as too how much tax dollars are being blown just by Kristin Freeland alone and her back and forth trade/tariff deals yet? it has to be running into the millions and millions. Millions that could be better spent on Canada and for Canadians. 

Is there anyone here think that having the government involved in trade deals is a good and great thing and deal for Canadians or Americans? For me the private sector could probably do a better job if trade deals were left up to the private sector. Just wondering. 

OK, let's let businesses negotiate. Any business that depends more on the EU will want to remain in the EU or, since the referendum was clear enough to at least exclude that, adopt the Norwegian model which would mean most  of the costs of EU membership, most of the obligations of EU membership, full access to the EU market, but no vote to decide what the obligations will even be. Meanwhile, any business that trades more with the rest of the world would prefer unilateral free trade. Either decision would benefit some businesses and hurt others. They could compromise by adopting the Canadian model which gives them some basic access to the EU but not much and allows them to sign trade deals with other countries too with probably all kinds of country-of-origin rules. In some respects, the compromise option would be the worst since they would have mediocre deals all around.

 

So even businesses would not be able to come to an agreement. Any government that tries to be all things to all people in this will come to a grinding standstill as it tries to meet everyone's contradictory needs. That's where a clear referendum question could have benefited them. Had the people voted remain, done. Had they voted unilateral free trade, done.

 

Even if you let businesses negotiate the deal, they'd still be divided between each other.

[Machjo]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

As far as I am concerned the people voted to exit the EU. Then it's get back to doing what is needed to run a country without the EU telling the British people as to how they will run their own country. Canada works well without being a member of the EU so where is there a problem here? The UK can still make trade deals with the EU if they want too. 

The fact that you have to say 'as far as I am concerned' proves my point. It's not clear from the referendum's wording at all, so we have to rely on how each person understands it.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

A trade deal is a deal between governments to reduce their involved in trade and let the free market decide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_agreement

This is why conservatives are having trouble with Trump and his supporters adding government tariffs to trade.  Since you don't seem to be following the history of this, tariffs have been most recently been supported by the left to shore up domestic unions.  Eg the NDP

Notwithstanding why conservatives are getting fed up with Trump's brainwaves I certainly don't trust their judgement when it comes to government involvement in the ridiculously misnamed free market.  Orwell would probably piss himself laughing at that one.

Conservatives are just far too quick to defend the right of lobbyists to lobby politicians and senior civil servants in-camera on behalf of their betters.  Sure I've noticed the odd conservative tepidly voice their concern about this but then I've also noticed them beak away about their vote having more clout at the ballot box than people they deem to be beneath them.  They'll even go so far as to deny people a vote until their income reaches some threshold - as if this wouldn't move like the proverbial goalpost as time went by.

The vast majority don't seem to have the moral or ethical background that even thinking about government and trade requires never mind to weigh in on it. 

[objectivist]

The problem with the EU is that it is a bureaucratic dictatorship with very little accountability to the average man and woman on the street. Canada and the US are also bureaucratic dictatorships, with slightly fewer bureaucrats per capita. The problem with bureaucracy is that it governs in its own interest, and not in that of the producers of society. If you want to learn more about this phenomenon, read up on Social Choice Theory. It is an exact science, and every Canadian intuitively knows that "they are only in it for themselves". Social Choice Theory is correct. Socialism and bureaucracy are incorrect. Politicians spend money on the basis of the next election. Not because it is economically efficient. This should be outlawed.

In Canada, taxes are double what they should be, because of bureaucracy. The more bureaucrats per thousand people, the higher the taxes, and the poorer your state becomes. Quebec is a perfect example of this. The highest taxes in North America, constant leeching off of the rest of Canada, and only 1 US state is poorer, which is Mississippi. Considering the territory, resources, and education of the Quebec people, this is completely ridiculous. Quebec should be pitching in, not taking out. In that case, all of Canada would prosper even more.

And I am in Quebec, living by my own means. The basic problem of Quebec is that unions think they own the place. I have always hated unions. They pay lazy people the same as hard workers, and then the hard workers unconsciously say "Who is John Galt?" and become lazy themselves.

As Jordan B. Peterson points out, when you put good disadvantaged kids with bad disadvantaged kids, the good kids become bad. Still, I find Peterson very lukewarm compared to pure Objectivism. A step in the right direction, but you do not criticize Ayn Rand for literary style. Anyone can do that! You learn Objectivism and make it your life's philosophy. Otherwise you are a mewling socialist, whether you call yourself a Conservative or not.

Unilateral free trade worked brilliantly for Britain in 1851. It is widely argued this led to the Victorian boom which lasted until the 1920s. Living standards rose greatly. Many new technologies were invented. It may sound counterintuitive, but we have been brainwashed by collectivism and communism, which can even be found in the Conservative Party of Canada as it supports supply management (in Quebec, of course.) Trump says our supply management is killing US farmers, but it is also killing poor people in Canada as well, who bear the burden of this supply management monopoly the worst. Unintentionally or not, Trump is a friend of poor people in Canada, which is why many poor people in Canada are wearing MAGA hats, despite what snowflake SJW extreme-leftist victim groups want.

What happens with unilateral free trade is that cheap goods will flood the Canadian market, raising Canadian living standards, and forcing Canadian companies to be more efficient to compete. This is why I like what Trump is doing. There is no way we can beat Trump at his game, however we can up our own game and let the chips fall as they may. Trump is forcing us to act like adults, instead of complacent government-dependent socialist collectivist communist babies. 

The problem for all of these foreign suppliers in unilateral free trade, then, is that they are now stuck with Canadian dollars. I tried to explain this to the PC Party in 1987, but they were having none of it. There is only one place you can spend Canadian dollars. And that is in Canada.

Because our companies have somehow become more competitive (to compete with the flood of foreign goods), they are now able to supply all these foreigners with the goods and services we can supply. All and all, we still have a $2 trillion market, and that is something people all over the world will want a piece of. New technologies get invented, supply goes up, demand goes up, investment comes flooding in, and wages rise on the basis of hard work and not unions.

In the current trade dispute with Donald Trump, by taxing on a 1-for-1 basis in "retaliation" to US actions, our extreme-left Liberal government is punishing Canadian consumers TEN TIMES AS MUCH PER CAPITA. Can you people get this into your thick skulls? The US action was an attempt to lower Canadian economic activity. The response should not be to lower it even more. Canada should have LOWERED tariffs, LOWERED corporate taxes, and LOWERED GST, while firing thousands of useless bureaucrats. 

To make matters even worse than that, now the extreme-left Liberal government is planning to subsidise these steel and aluminum producers to the tune of $800 million, which could have easily been spent on severance packages for bureaucrats.

Oh, and guess where the aluminum producers are. Quebec. What the extreme-left Liberal government does not want to understand is that every time they interfere in the normal course of business in Quebec, they are taking away opportunity from the Quebec people. The people in Alberta are exactly right to complain about transfer payments always going to Quebec. It should be extremely embarrassing to be leeches like this. Every government handout makes it more difficult for the Quebec people to succeed. 

If we need to fire more bureaucrats, we simply abrogate their union contracts using the notwithstanding clause. If they resist, we bring in troops, police, replacement workers and AI software. Our freedoms are more important than their so-called collective rights. If there are agitators who are trying to foment socialist revolution, we put them in jail for treason. There is no compromise with Marxism.

It is really sad that after all these years, I was able to get the nickname 'objectivist' on this site. Please learn Objectivism. It is the only pure capitalist philosophy. Please stop defining yourself on the political spectrum with left-wing Marxist murderers and looters. It is either right or wrong, and that is all we need to know. Socialism has murdered tens of millions of people, and there should be no compromise with socialism at all.

Do you think it would ever happen, say once in a billion years, when a Canadian would say, "No, Ms. Government, I do not WANT your free stuff?"

NULLUM GRATUITUM PRANDIUM.

[Machjo]

You lost me on Trump. He's perhaps the most protectionist president since the great depression.

That said, I certainly would support a well-written referendum coinciding with the next federal election on unilateral free trade. My only stipulation would be that it not be a for-or-against referendum but a referendum for one of two more clearly defined objectives so as to provide the government with some clarity after the referendum.

[taxme]

16 hours ago, Machjo said:

The fact that you have to say 'as far as I am concerned' proves my point. It's not clear from the referendum's wording at all, so we have to rely on how each person understands it.

In reality the Eu was setup as part of the new world order, the one world government where the globalist bankster elite would totally control all industry and markets and we the people. They are an unelected body that has total control and power to force any country in the EU to have to abide by their globalist elite rules or pay a penalty of fine or be sanctioned. The EU ruling elite is a dictatorship. The EU serves no other purpose other than being a part of a globalist corporation organization designed and set up to run and rule the world and control the economy of nations and rule over their people as far as I am concerned.