On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:23:21 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Except that wasn't a vote for the EU

It was a vote to remain in the EU, so I find it difficult to conceive
how it could possibly be interpreted as anything other than a vote
for the EU.

I am too young to remember much of the detail, but I only recall talk at
the time of voting to enter/stay in the common market. No mention of the
EU or similar terminology. I get the string impression that is how
people at the time perceived what was on offer.

Because, at the time, it was called the "European Economic Community",
nicknamed "common market". The name change to "European Union" came later
- but the details which people seem to be objecting to (principally free
movement of people) were integral from the founding in the late '50s.

The hard-of-thinking/Daily-Wail-gullible usually conflate the totally
separate European Convention on Human Rights, forgetting that the UK was
instrumental in creating that in the 1950s, and that the much-loathed
Human Rights Act merely allows breaches of the ECHR to be prosecuted in
British courts rather than having to be escalated to the European Court
of Human Rights. Strangely, none of them can ever point to which articles
of the convention they object to, either.