On 22/08/2018 18:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

snip

That's just ridiculous. 'Choice' means a range of options. Even if
they're not decent (and I would suggest they do need to be decent),
you do at least need to be clear on what the options mean.

See my other post. If it wasn't clear to you then you were nodding off.
Perhaps you still are.


Probably :-)

You mean this:

--
we would leave the EU, the CU, the SM, and the
jurisdiction of the ECJ. Article 50 makes it quite clear: two years
after declaring the intention to leave under Article 50 (that is by a
member state exercising its treaty rights), "the Treaties shall cease
to apply to the Member State"
--

Well, no, that wasn't the choice presented. it was a question:

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

Nothing about the single market (like Norway), etc.

I suppose it was reasonably implicit that the treaties would end, but
where was the discussion about what would be put in their place?

I gathered that all EU rules and laws would be rolled over and modified
as and when - that was the only reasonably clear point that I remember.

And did anyone explain, in clear terms, what that would likely mean in
practice? An individual's freedoms, job security, freedom of movement,
standard of living? Do you seriously expect me to believe that they did?
The only emphatic messages (£350m etc) came from 'Leave', and we all
know what become of those.

I say 'in clear terms', because there was of course a good deal of
detail. Fore example:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alternatives-to-membership-possible-models-for-the-united-kingdom-outside-the-european-union

That's a 50 page document skimming three versions of what 'leave' means.
Which version were people voting for? Is that a reasonable way to
present a referendum?

I've no idea why you are so seemingly obtuse on all of this.

--
Cheers, Rob