|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 26, 2018 9:02:13 GMT
Another clear thing that May's' deal' does not do is to " put BREXIT to bed" so that as s country we/ and the EU can move on.....it's simply saying that we carry on negotiations until we get ' a deal'...... intentionally do in my opinion to put distance between the Referendum and any future decisions that are made. Amazing how a fully-paid up member of "the establishment" (son of BBC worker, Cambridge University graduate, worked for a stockbroker, parachuted into a safe Tory seat, former government minister, currently sitting in the House of Lords with a life peer, currently known as Baron Lilley) instantly becomes a "brilliant political mind" on Twitter if they have a certain opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 26, 2018 9:17:02 GMT
Another clear thing that May's' deal' does not do is to " put BREXIT to bed" so that as s country we/ and the EU can move on.....it's simply saying that we carry on negotiations until we get ' a deal'...... intentionally do in my opinion to put distance between the Referendum and any future decisions that are made. Amazing how a fully-paid up member of "the establishment" (son of BBC worker, Cambridge University graduate, worked for a stockbroker, parachuted into a safe Tory seat, former government minister, currently sitting in the House of Lords with a life peer, currently known as Baron Lilley) instantly becomes a "brilliant political mind" on Twitter if they have a certain opinion. Twitter allows most points of view ( I think it does censor though....is Tommy Robinson banned?) You don't seem to grasp that the EU issue is cross party and non party..... biggest question facing the country since the war. One of the major problems with the Labour party is trying to play the short term party Political game and some of their supporters seem happy to attack personalities ( some call it the politics of envy, I would not go that far, but certainly that's how some supporters leave themselves open to criticism) and miss the big issue that has been grasped by the working class..... they'd rather call the working class voters who chose BREXIT " thick", we know what's best for you. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 26, 2018 9:22:17 GMT
If true...and so it goes on....( status quo 🙄😏) And clearly the EURO is central....... www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-24/forming-eu-banking-union-is-essential-merkel-adviser-tells-wams?fbclid=IwAR2fS4FP5YvIOFyoVkPmIA0UlqfoDJg7Tfus8na-A03gTIvzbWYe4c1VkeMIt’s imperative that a banking union is created to reduce risks in Europe, Isabel Schnabel, a member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s independent council of economic advisers, told Welt am Sonntag. “For the stability of the European monetary union, the banking union is essential,” Schnabel told the newspaper. “We have seen in the euro crisis that a crisis in a member state can get meaningfully worse if banks are too closely tied to the country they sit in, so it is of enormous importance to loosen that close risk composite between banks and states with the banking union.” Merkel has urged progress on strengthening the euro area and creating a banking union before European Parliament elections in May, though those efforts have been hindered by more pressing issues, such as migration and Brexit. The European Union’s banking-union project, which dates back to 2012, is also an attempt to level the playing field in the bloc’s financial markets. “Whoever is against the banking union is essentially against the euro,” Schnabel said in the interview. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 26, 2018 9:26:04 GMT
"Europe needs a common migration policy"
Hasn't Merkel done enough damage on our behalf without a mandate?
|
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 26, 2018 10:09:50 GMT
Amazing how a fully-paid up member of "the establishment" (son of BBC worker, Cambridge University graduate, worked for a stockbroker, parachuted into a safe Tory seat, former government minister, currently sitting in the House of Lords with a life peer, currently known as Baron Lilley) instantly becomes a "brilliant political mind" on Twitter if they have a certain opinion. Twitter allows most points of view ( I think it does censor though....is Tommy Robinson banned?) You don't seem to grasp that the EU issue is cross party and non party..... biggest question facing the country since the war. One of the major problems with the Labour party is trying to play the short term party Political game and some of their supporters seem happy to attack personalities ( some call it the politics of envy, I would not go that far, but certainly that's how some supporters leave themselves open to criticism) and miss the big issue that has been grasped by the working class..... they'd rather call the working class voters who chose BREXIT " thick", we know what's best for you. My post wasn't anything to do with parties - in fact I'll edit out the 'Tory' part of 'safe Tory seat' as it's not relevant. I agree it's not to do with parties. Ideally you'd have a cross-party approach to it, but that was never outlined in the lead up to the referendum so unfortunately it was never likely to happen. A cross-party approach would've also meant the will of the people from the 2015 election would not be respected, as they chose a Tory government to lead the country. My original post was about the perception of what is 'the establishment' and who are the great thinkers - it seems everyone who disagrees with someone's political point of view is labelled 'the establishment', and anyone who agrees is one of the great political minds. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 26, 2018 10:31:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 26, 2018 10:31:26 GMT
Twitter allows most points of view ( I think it does censor though....is Tommy Robinson banned?) You don't seem to grasp that the EU issue is cross party and non party..... biggest question facing the country since the war. One of the major problems with the Labour party is trying to play the short term party Political game and some of their supporters seem happy to attack personalities ( some call it the politics of envy, I would not go that far, but certainly that's how some supporters leave themselves open to criticism) and miss the big issue that has been grasped by the working class..... they'd rather call the working class voters who chose BREXIT " thick", we know what's best for you. My post wasn't anything to do with parties - in fact I'll edit out the 'Tory' part of 'safe Tory seat' as it's not relevant. I agree it's not to do with parties. Ideally you'd have a cross-party approach to it, but that was never outlined in the lead up to the referendum so unfortunately it was never likely to happen. A cross-party approach would've also meant the will of the people from the 2015 election would not be respected, as they chose a Tory government to lead the country. My original post was about the perception of what is 'the establishment' and who are the great thinkers - it seems everyone who disagrees with someone's political point of view is labelled 'the establishment', and anyone who agrees is one of the great political minds. It is difficult to put a collective name on those who are part of the concerted effort to thwart BREXIT.My post , inspired (!) by your post made the point that Labour , in my opinion, are not taking a lead but are trying to play a party Political game. What do you think of the calls for a common European immigration policy and a Common banking Union? Should we join the Euro, because we are not really in the inner circle? |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 26, 2018 10:53:26 GMT
My post wasn't anything to do with parties - in fact I'll edit out the 'Tory' part of 'safe Tory seat' as it's not relevant. I agree it's not to do with parties. Ideally you'd have a cross-party approach to it, but that was never outlined in the lead up to the referendum so unfortunately it was never likely to happen. A cross-party approach would've also meant the will of the people from the 2015 election would not be respected, as they chose a Tory government to lead the country. My original post was about the perception of what is 'the establishment' and who are the great thinkers - it seems everyone who disagrees with someone's political point of view is labelled 'the establishment', and anyone who agrees is one of the great political minds. It is difficult to put a collective name on those who are part of the concerted effort to thwart BREXIT.My post , inspired (!) by your post made the point that Labour , in my opinion, are not taking a lead but are trying to play a party Political game. What do you think of the calls for a common European immigration policy and a Common banking Union? Should we join the Euro, because we are not really in the inner circle? The opposition don't have to, and never have taken the lead in a democracy. They are there, in theory, to hold the government (who HAVE to take the lead) to account. That's what they seem to be doing at the moment. Should they take power, do I think they would make a success out of Breixt? I have strong doubts. Do I think they'd do better than the current government? Possibly. We've been through the whole 'should we join the Euro'/'what do you think about proposed EU initiatives' debate. I have either answered them in previous posts (not that long ago) or cannot be arsed to look into the finer details of what are at the moment vague proposals for a group that we will no longer be a member of in four months. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 26, 2018 11:02:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 26, 2018 11:12:06 GMT
It is difficult to put a collective name on those who are part of the concerted effort to thwart BREXIT.My post , inspired (!) by your post made the point that Labour , in my opinion, are not taking a lead but are trying to play a party Political game. What do you think of the calls for a common European immigration policy and a Common banking Union? Should we join the Euro, because we are not really in the inner circle? The opposition don't have to, and never have taken the lead in a democracy. They are there, in theory, to hold the government (who HAVE to take the lead) to account. That's what they seem to be doing at the moment. Should they take power, do I think they would make a success out of Breixt? I have strong doubts. Do I think they'd do better than the current government? Possibly. We've been through the whole 'should we join the Euro'/'what do you think about proposed EU initiatives' debate. I have either answered them in previous posts (not that long ago) or cannot be arsed to look into the finer details of what are at the moment vague proposals for a group that we will no longer be a member of in four months. In the context of the EU people are looking for leadership and vision, not opposition, that's simply party politics. I see that you have avoided my direct question about " vague" proposals... mind you the EU have depended upon their followers not being aware( or bothered about what is going on / their intentions...its hot " Europe" in the name so we trust "them" ( not quite sure who they are though, or how we remove/ challenge "them") |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 26, 2018 11:15:29 GMT
Bravo If there was a vote tomorrow I would vote LEAVE That’s the problem remain voters just do not understand that many didn’t vote leave for economic or social issues They voted leave purely on the subject of sovereignty |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 26, 2018 11:18:39 GMT
Bravo If there was a vote tomorrow I would vote LEAVE That’s the problem remain voters just do not understand that many didn’t vote leave for economic or social issues They voted leave purely on the subject of sovereignty And you know this how exactly? Sovereignty? You do realise we have always been a sovereign nation don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 26, 2018 11:40:33 GMT
The opposition don't have to, and never have taken the lead in a democracy. They are there, in theory, to hold the government (who HAVE to take the lead) to account. That's what they seem to be doing at the moment. Should they take power, do I think they would make a success out of Breixt? I have strong doubts. Do I think they'd do better than the current government? Possibly. We've been through the whole 'should we join the Euro'/'what do you think about proposed EU initiatives' debate. I have either answered them in previous posts (not that long ago) or cannot be arsed to look into the finer details of what are at the moment vague proposals for a group that we will no longer be a member of in four months. In the context of the EU people are looking for leadership and vision, not opposition, that's simply party politics. I see that you have avoided my direct question about " vague" proposals... mind you the EU have depended upon their followers not being aware( or bothered about what is going on / their intentions...its hot " Europe" in the name so we trust "them" ( not quite sure who they are though, or how we remove/ challenge "them") Four months out from getting the very thing you voted for, you're mard-arsing because you think the governments should be implementing your idea of Brexit because it seems obvious to you that all of the 17m+ people that voted Leave think exactly the same as you. I doubt you could get 17m to agree on tomorrow being Tuesday (checks calendar to make sure today is Monday), so there's fuck all proof that you carry the opinion of 17m+ on something as complicated as Brexit. You're also against the idea of getting confirmation that all the people think the same as you via a referendum on the type of Brexit the people want (I've already stated I would not have Remain on the ballot paper if I could get my way on a second referendum). Over the last few pages I've given far more direct answers on how to move forward than yourself. You have just gone on and on and on and on about how terrible the EU is. Much like most of the extreme Brexit politicians (mostly to be found in the Conservative party, but not only), you are stuck in protest mode - they've won the referendum but don't want the hard work of actually implementing the sodding thing. I think I read somewhere it's called the 'Burden of Winning', when you don't just have to endlessly point out the bad in something but have to set out a plan to actually fix the fucker. The good thing about not being a politician is that we on this board don't need to do the hard work, only have a discussion about the way forward. So at least our biggest crime in concocting this endless cycle of discussion is to bore the shit out of other people, and it doesn't have any disastrous consequences for the rest of the country. For the last time, I'll say congratulations on winning the referendum and enjoy the countdown to a Brexit negotiated by the democratically-elected government of this country. The fact that this government is weak as piss is thanks to the British public refusing to give them a majority in the 2017 election. But hey, if the will of the people was for the Tories not have a free reign over the Brexit negotiations then so it shall be. Viva democracy and all that. Other than that, have a good day. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 26, 2018 12:01:47 GMT
In the context of the EU people are looking for leadership and vision, not opposition, that's simply party politics. I see that you have avoided my direct question about " vague" proposals... mind you the EU have depended upon their followers not being aware( or bothered about what is going on / their intentions...its hot " Europe" in the name so we trust "them" ( not quite sure who they are though, or how we remove/ challenge "them") Four months out from getting the very thing you voted for, you're mard-arsing because you think the governments should be implementing your idea of Brexit because it seems obvious to you that all of the 17m+ people that voted Leave think exactly the same as you. I doubt you could get 17m to agree on tomorrow being Tuesday (checks calendar to make sure today is Monday), so there's fuck all proof that you carry the opinion of 17m+ on something as complicated as Brexit. You're also against the idea of getting confirmation that all the people think the same as you via a referendum on the type of Brexit the people want (I've already stated I would not have Remain on the ballot paper if I could get my way on a second referendum). Over the last few pages I've given far more direct answers on how to move forward than yourself. You have just gone on and on and on and on about how terrible the EU is. Much like most of the extreme Brexit politicians (mostly to be found in the Conservative party, but not only), you are stuck in protest mode - they've won the referendum but don't want the hard work of actually implementing the sodding thing. I think I read somewhere it's called the 'Burden of Winning', when you don't just have to endlessly point out the bad in something but have to set out a plan to actually fix the fucker. The good thing about not being a politician is that we on this board don't need to do the hard work, only have a discussion about the way forward. So at least our biggest crime in concocting this endless cycle of discussion is to bore the shit out of other people, and it doesn't have any disastrous consequences for the rest of the country. For the last time, I'll say congratulations on winning the referendum and enjoy the countdown to a Brexit negotiated by the democratically-elected government of this country. The fact that this government is weak as piss is thanks to the British public refusing to give them a majority in the 2017 election. But hey, if the will of the people was for the Tories not have a free reign over the Brexit negotiations then so it shall be. Viva democracy and all that. Other than that, have a good day. I'll take that as you are still locked into BREXIT being a party Political , bash the Tories, issue, and the fact that the EU is now talking about a banking Union, a common migration policy and an Army are all irrelevant because Remain means having the status quo. I'm not sure that Remainers know what they are arguing for. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 12:13:58 GMT
Bravo If there was a vote tomorrow I would vote LEAVE That’s the problem remain voters just do not understand that many didn’t vote leave for economic or social issues They voted leave purely on the subject of sovereignty Spot on Wags !  |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2018 12:14:44 GMT
Surely the question(s) on the original referendum paper should have been ... A) Leave with a deal (but we couldn't have this option at the time because none of us knew what this option actually meant) B) Leave with no deal C) Remain If we're going to be GENUINELY democratic, now that we know what option A actually means, then why would we remotely not put these (now) informed questions back to the people? Surely there's a possibility that remain would have won if we had known what option A actually meant at the time, isn't there? Now we (for the first time) have the ability to find out ... democracy. We made the choice to leave in June 2016, after the referendum was endorsed by Parliament. It's clear that the remainers still can't handle the result. If they really want another referendum, now they know what "the deal" is, then the question should be May's Deal or No Deal, and not include Remain as an option as that has already been decided.........democracy. Are you suggesting that if we had known what an actual deal meant in 2016, then it wouldn't have been an option to vote for on the paper at the time? Of course it would. Surely democracy is about giving the people who are voting in a referendum as much informed information as possible with which to base their decision on. Back in 2016 the leave option was fairies and unicorns stuff, as people could vote for it based on it being ANYTHING that they as an individual would imagine it to be. Now we do know what it means. Can you say with absolute certainty, that given the stark option at the time of A) Leaving with May's deal B) Leaving with no deal C) Remaining That some voters who voted to leave in 2016 would have chosen not to vote or even, voted to remain? You can't. Democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 12:25:10 GMT
We're not talking about 2016 though are we Paul ?
We've done that 2 and a half years ago and the decision was leave.
We can't just keep returning to square one over and over again because some people aren't happy with the original outcome. The decision was made in 2016, ratified by Parliament, and the subsequent "deal" should now be considered, debated, and voted on.
As such we should now address the current situation in 2018. If there is to be a second referendum then it should be (IMO) either No Deal or May's Deal.
(It may well also be that some voters who voted to remain in 2016 would now also vote to leave).
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 26, 2018 12:32:34 GMT
We made the choice to leave in June 2016, after the referendum was endorsed by Parliament. It's clear that the remainers still can't handle the result. If they really want another referendum, now they know what "the deal" is, then the question should be May's Deal or No Deal, and not include Remain as an option as that has already been decided.........democracy. Are you suggesting that if we had known what an actual deal meant in 2016, then it wouldn't have been an option to vote for on the paper at the time? Of course it would. Democracy is about giving the people who are voting in a referendum as much informed information as possible with which to base their decision on. Back in 2016 the leave option was fairies and unicorns stuff, as people could vote for it based on it being ANYTHING that they as an individual would imagine it to be. Now we do know what it means. Can you say with absolute certainty, that given the stark option at the time of A) Leaving with May's deal B) Leaving with no deal C) Remaining That some voters who voted to leave in 2016 would have chosen not to vote or even, voted to remain? You can't. Democracy. We still don't know what it means. May's 'deal' isn't actually the deal. You do realise this don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2018 12:46:49 GMT
We're not talking about 2016 though are we Paul ? We've done that 2 and a half years ago and the decision was leave. We can't just keep returning to square one over and over again because some people aren't happy with the original outcome. The decision was made in 2016, ratified by Parliament, and the subsequent "deal" should now be considered, debated, and voted on. As such we should now address the current situation in 2018. If there is to be a second referendum then it should be (IMO) either No Deal or May's Deal. (It may well also be that some voters who voted to remain in 2016 would now also vote to leave). I guess I'm talking about the imminent future. It will be considered, debated and voted on and it won't get through parliament. If as a result, it goes back to the people, then as a result of having far more information to base a decesion on, then the option not to leave should be there. Personally, I don't think this will happen. I think parliament will reject her deal and depending on how close the vote is, she may go back to them again but she will still fail and she will have no choice but to resign and ultimately we may well end up in a general election. What happens to Brexit then is anybody's guess but I assume it will very much depend on how Labour decides they want to play their hand, now that they will be forced into finally showing a proper one. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2018 12:49:23 GMT
Are you suggesting that if we had known what an actual deal meant in 2016, then it wouldn't have been an option to vote for on the paper at the time? Of course it would. Democracy is about giving the people who are voting in a referendum as much informed information as possible with which to base their decision on. Back in 2016 the leave option was fairies and unicorns stuff, as people could vote for it based on it being ANYTHING that they as an individual would imagine it to be. Now we do know what it means. Can you say with absolute certainty, that given the stark option at the time of A) Leaving with May's deal B) Leaving with no deal C) Remaining That some voters who voted to leave in 2016 would have chosen not to vote or even, voted to remain? You can't. Democracy. We still don't know what it means. May's 'deal' isn't actually the deal. You do realise this don't you? We know far more than we did in 2016. That is clearly demonstrated by how many people simply want to now (and that's the important bit) leave without any deal at all, as a result of what May has negotiated. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 13:04:49 GMT
We're not talking about 2016 though are we Paul ? We've done that 2 and a half years ago and the decision was leave. We can't just keep returning to square one over and over again because some people aren't happy with the original outcome. The decision was made in 2016, ratified by Parliament, and the subsequent "deal" should now be considered, debated, and voted on. As such we should now address the current situation in 2018. If there is to be a second referendum then it should be (IMO) either No Deal or May's Deal. (It may well also be that some voters who voted to remain in 2016 would now also vote to leave). I guess I'm talking about the imminent future. It will be considered, debated and voted on and it won't get through parliament. If as a result, it goes back to the people, then as a result of having far more information to base a decesion on, then the option not to leave should be there. Personally, I don't think this will happen. I think parliament will reject her deal and depending on how close the vote is, she may go back to them again but she will still fail and ultimately she will have no choice but to resign and we'll be thrust into a general election. What happens to Brexit then is anybody's guess but I assume it will very much depend on how Labour decides they want to play their hand now that they will be forced into finally showing it. I agree that it very likely won't get through Parliament. I personally think that the MP's should vote in accordance with how their constituency voted in the referendum - i.e if the constituency voted Remain, then the MP should vote remain in Parliament, and Leave if the constituency voted leave. They're there to represent the constituency wishes after all. My personal feeling is that Parliament will vote down both May's Deal and No Deal, although the specific real points of the "Deal" are still to be negotiated after March 2019. The fallout from a HOC defeat is anybody's guess right now but a general election does seem more and more likely. Corbyn and Starmer seem certain they can renegotiate a better deal with Brussels but I think this is pie in the sky as Brussels would no doubt want even more concessions if they were prepared to renegotiate at all. It's all just one big mess. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 26, 2018 13:14:38 GMT
Bravo If there was a vote tomorrow I would vote LEAVE That’s the problem remain voters just do not understand that many didn’t vote leave for economic or social issues They voted leave purely on the subject of sovereignty And you know this how exactly? Sovereignty? You do realise we have always been a sovereign nation don't you? Your original post is very misleading. Most of the improvements have taken place throughout the world and little to do with the EU. Visit Canada, Norway, etc. The EU has funded nothing as far as the UK is concerned, we have paid for ourselves and our net contribution has paid for the running of the EU and the EU grants to other countries such as Spain, Greece, etc. I worked for the French for 8 years, they take no notice of much legislation we slavishly follow. The ink wasn't dry on the agreement yesterday and the French president and German chancellor started making claims on fishing in UK waters. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 26, 2018 13:18:22 GMT
We still don't know what it means. May's 'deal' isn't actually the deal. You do realise this don't you? We know far more than we did in 2016. That is clearly demonstrated by how many people simply want to now (and that's the important bit) leave without any deal at all, as a result of what May has negotiated. Indeed we do. We now know more about the likelihood of a European Army, handing the financial management of your country over to Brussels ala Italy. Closer union in it's many guises. As much as May's deal does not meet my objectives of leave, a Remain option must be fully explained with opt out options for us for closer union we don't agree with. Unfortunately you're either fully out of this club or fully in (which we have never been). Some Euro MEP last night said that if we changed our minds and decided to Remain we would not have to take the Euro AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2018 13:40:02 GMT
We know far more than we did in 2016. That is clearly demonstrated by how many people simply want to now (and that's the important bit) leave without any deal at all, as a result of what May has negotiated. Indeed we do. We now know more about the likelihood of a European Army, handing the financial management of your country over to Brussels ala Italy. Closer union in it's many guises. As much as May's deal does not meet my objectives of leave, a Remain option must be fully explained with opt out options for us for closer union we don't agree with. Unfortunately you're either fully out of this club or fully in (which we have never been). Some Euro MEP last night said that if we changed our minds and decided to Remain we would not have to take the Euro AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. I couldn't agree with you more Gary. The reason we're in this mess now is because the questions on the referendum paper were ridiculously over simplified. Either answer could mean whatever the voter personally wanted it to mean, ergo it would always be impossible to deliver what people thought that they had voted for. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 26, 2018 13:45:02 GMT
And you know this how exactly? Sovereignty? You do realise we have always been a sovereign nation don't you? Your original post is very misleading. Most of the improvements have taken place throughout the world and little to do with the EU. Visit Canada, Norway, etc. The EU has funded nothing as far as the UK is concerned, we have paid for ourselves and our net contribution has paid for the running of the EU and the EU grants to other countries such as Spain, Greece, etc. I worked for the French for 8 years, they take no notice of much legislation we slavishly follow. The ink wasn't dry on the agreement yesterday and the French president and German chancellor started making claims on fishing in UK waters. We have always been a sovereign nation. |
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Nov 26, 2018 13:48:59 GMT
Indeed we do. We now know more about the likelihood of a European Army, handing the financial management of your country over to Brussels ala Italy. Closer union in it's many guises. As much as May's deal does not meet my objectives of leave, a Remain option must be fully explained with opt out options for us for closer union we don't agree with. Unfortunately you're either fully out of this club or fully in (which we have never been). Some Euro MEP last night said that if we changed our minds and decided to Remain we would not have to take the Euro AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. I couldn't agree with you more Gary. The reason we're in this mess now is because the questions on the referendum paper were ridiculously over simplified. Either answer could mean whatever the voter personally wanted it to mean, ergo it would always be impossible to deliver what people thought that they had voted for. How many questions would you want on a referendum then ? Stick to the football stuff. On Brexit you are well out of your depth-Chap! |
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Nov 26, 2018 13:54:43 GMT
Indeed we do. We now know more about the likelihood of a European Army, handing the financial management of your country over to Brussels ala Italy. Closer union in it's many guises. As much as May's deal does not meet my objectives of leave, a Remain option must be fully explained with opt out options for us for closer union we don't agree with. Unfortunately you're either fully out of this club or fully in (which we have never been). Some Euro MEP last night said that if we changed our minds and decided to Remain we would not have to take the Euro AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. I couldn't agree with you more Gary. The reason we're in this mess now is because the questions on the referendum paper were ridiculously over simplified. Either answer could mean whatever the voter personally wanted it to mean, ergo it would always be impossible to deliver what people thought that they had voted for. Dimwitted and slow to respond. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 26, 2018 13:56:22 GMT
We know far more than we did in 2016. That is clearly demonstrated by how many people simply want to now (and that's the important bit) leave without any deal at all, as a result of what May has negotiated. Indeed we do. We now know more about the likelihood of a European Army, handing the financial management of your country over to Brussels ala Italy. Closer union in it's many guises. As much as May's deal does not meet my objectives of leave, a Remain option must be fully explained with opt out options for us for closer union we don't agree with. Unfortunately you're either fully out of this club or fully in (which we have never been). Some Euro MEP last night said that if we changed our minds and decided to Remain we would not have to take the Euro AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. There’s the problem all the people who want to remain and are pissing their knickers for a people’s vote truly believe we can turn the clock back Anyone who thinks the Eu is going to turn round and say ok Britain you’ve pissed us about for two years it’s ok you can come back keep you’re rebate keep the pound and every other opt out you have Have spent to much time on the old monkey dust If there is another referendum the remain option should have written in law exactly the terms we remain guaranteed for at least 10 years |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2018 13:59:40 GMT
I couldn't agree with you more Gary. The reason we're in this mess now is because the questions on the referendum paper were ridiculously over simplified. Either answer could mean whatever the voter personally wanted it to mean, ergo it would always be impossible to deliver what people thought that they had voted for. How many questions would you want on a referendum then ? Stick to the football stuff. On Brexit you are well out of your depth-Chap! I didn't mention the number of questions did I? I simply said that when you've got such an over simplified question on the referendum paper, then the answer was always going to be whatever the voter imagined it could be and thus impossible to deliver and I was agreeing with Gary, that if it did go back to the people, then the remain option would have to be equally fully explained with opt out options, it couldn't simply be an option to blindly remain. |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Nov 26, 2018 13:59:45 GMT
If Remain had won the referendum does anyone believe that we'd now be arguing the case for a second referendum where we voted on what type of Remain we wanted?
(Of course it would have to be a 'hard' or 'soft' Remain. A 'hard' Remain would give us a fully fledge Remain, the Euro, EU army, the works. A 'soft' Remain would give us so many opt-outs it'd actually be closer to Leave than Remain.)
|
|
