Jacob rees Mog is right.

@CollectiveSoul (I somehow cannot quote you directly so I will mention you)

Your remark that the Maastricht Treaty is what cost the Conservatives in 1997 is factually impossible. The treaty was signed in February 1992 and the Conservatives went on to win a majority 3 months later. What cost them the 1997 election was generally poor economic management (at least as far as their repuation was concerned) as well as general distain for conservatism among the public. Plus Labour's campaign was run far better.

As for handing over law-making powers to Brussels... God forbid we don't have the absolute power to legislate over the rules of a market in which we are not the sole member! Absolutely outrageous!

No it was Tory sleaze (numerous scandals involving mp’s) and a general feeling they wanted something fresh and new after 18 years of conservative government

This is literally what I wrote, minus the scandals part. Besides it wasn't even my main point.

Do you actually read what I write or do you always feel the need to try and 'one-up/correct' my posts? Because it feels like that's what you do most of the time.

@CollectiveSoul (I somehow cannot quote you directly so I will mention you)

Your remark that the Maastricht Treaty is what cost the Conservatives in 1997 is factually impossible. The treaty was signed in February 1992 and the Conservatives went on to win a majority 3 months later. What cost them the 1997 election was generally poor economic management (at least as far as their repuation was concerned) as well as general distain for conservatism among the public. Plus Labour's campaign was run far better.

As for handing over law-making powers to Brussels... God forbid we don't have the absolute power to legislate over the rules of a market in which we are not the sole member! Absolutely outrageous!

Read what you like from my posts.

I read you posts and reply in kind, you said it was about the economy and it was nothing to do with that, the people were so happy with conservative management of the economy and labour so mistrusted they pledged to follow conservative spending plans for their first term.

I read them like that since that's basically what they're like. It's like you have the need to correct people on things despite how trivial they are.

Plus to say that the economy had nothing to do with their poor electoral results is also false. Labour gained popularity over the Conservatives immediately after Black Wednesday and (almost without fail) maintained that lead until 1997. So yes, the Conservative handling of the economy was partially responsible for their election defeat, among other things.

i didn't say it was Maastricht, i said it was black wednesday which cost the conservativres their reputation for economic management.

Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Australia and NZ do not owe their economic success over the past 50 years to a centralised politburo which dictates laws to them.

I'm sorry did you just quote Wikipedia as a reference? I'm embarrassed for you.

The poll graphic on there just shows voting intention as well, nothing to do with the economy.

I'm referring to the Wikipedia page as it compiles a whole bunch of political opinion data which clearly shows a downwards trend for the Conservative Party immediately after Black Wednesday. I'm well aware that the poll graphic shows voting intention, that was the point.

Except you did, "When john major scarified us on the altar of Europhillia on Black Wednesday and on signing Maastricht, he led the party to a record defeat in 1997". Clearly this wasn't the cause of their defeat since Maastricht came before the 1992 election.

I think you missed the point I was making about handing law making powers over to a different body. These powers are specifically for a market which we share (or shared) with 27~ other countries. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to not have absolute control over that. If we are to become members of said market then we'd have to lose some power.

Yea and that data is also at the same time as the reasons I listed previously its not evidence of your point.

yes... Maastricht was partly responsible for losing the '97 election because it kicked off the divisions in the party.

and as for your second point... that's exactly why leavers wanted to leave...

Special pleading, much?

The scandals you've mentioned happened throughout 1992-1997. This is why their polling never picked up after, you guessed it, Black Wednesday. Prior to that they had consistently polled above Labour.

Infact the only scandal which happened before Black Wednesday was in July 1992. Granted this did cause a slip in their popularity (as shown in the graphic which you dismissed because it's inconvinient for you) however they briefly picked up after that. Once Black Wednesday happened they were gone.

Fair enough, although the public certainly didn't turn against them because they signed Maastricht.

With regards to leaving I would simply disagree. If you have unparalleled and nearly unrestricted access to 27 other countries markets then you're going to have to accept common rules. These will have to change as the world moves on and therefore some form of government will be needed for the market.

No one denied that black wednesday made them dip in the polls, as if it wouldn't!

What is denied is that they stayed down in the polls due to the economy rather than wanting something fresh and new after 18 years, tory sleaze scandals and labour pledging to match the conservative economic plans.

If the tories economic management was thought of so bad why would they match it?

i really don't know what we are disagreeing on here... we both agree membership of a common market requires common rules. it's undemocratic (unless EU commissioners were fully elected) so i will always oppose it

Wanting to leave an organisation because we give up powers to it is what I'm disagreeing with. Perhaps I misunderstood the tone/nature of your comment, though, so apologise for that if I did.

let me put it this way. we have lost the right to vote on all the areas that the EU has control over - when we have elections, issues that the EU controls are no longer subject to election debates as we cannot vote to change them.

now I'm sure you will know, the EU is more than a common market and aspires to be much more. If the EU made 100% of our laws, then what would be the point of elections, as no government could change any law? how can you morally support that position?

The difference is no one knew how many tories supported her. Now we all know and it's not a lot.

Looks like the EU wont bend. Which is funny as they want to put all the onus on the UK to prevent a hard border but don't seem to understand that the onus is on them as well as it is the EU that will have to make that border.
No one wants a border apart from the EU who says it is to protect their economy. Then they have the balls to say we wont let our Irish friends down.

I'm starting to feel like crashing out of the EU is the best option.