|
Post by 4372 on Jan 5, 2019 23:14:34 GMT
4372, or may I call you 43 , As German said above I believe that we gave assurance to EU nationals before it happened the other way round. As now seems to be happening , it could be sorted commonsensically, the overiding principles being kindess, understanding, fairness and common sense.....a transition period of proving your legitimate right of residency ( as per the method arrived at now) based largely on evidence of preeceding/ existing residency. Waggy could have sorted the procedure s within a week. Again it should not have been weaponised but sorted out 2 years ago. One thing the official procedures seem to presume is acceptance of Mays deal. ( 2020/ June 2021).….if she was genuine about BREXIT it could have become operable from March 2019. www.gov.uk/uk-residence-eu-citizenswww.gov.uk/uk-residence-eu-citizensI knew she had... a quick 10 Second search shows May giving assurances to EU citizens in the UK... and asking for reciprocal rights from the EU... It’s really that simple.... The offer of continued residency could have been made within days of the Referendum result, and it did not need to be based on a reciprocal arrangement with the EU, it could have/ should have been a unilateral offer made to people who had come to the UK to work and participate in UK society. It should have been about considering the needs of those people, not laying out their rights as a bargaining chip, or making their position less important than trade or other issues. It was a time to be magnanimous and to try to reassure people. The recent Windrush affairs showed how badly managed immigration can be. You can almost see the failure to reassure the EU Citizens as part of the hostile atmosphere towards immigrants that existed until very recently.
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Jan 6, 2019 3:25:12 GMT
Well, yes. If you're incapable of distinguishing historical fact from bullshit retoric then go ahead. I'm sure you'll feel a lot better for it. Perfectly capable of both, thanks. Your other post perfectly describes, in your own words, exactly what project fear is. Don't know why you're trying to shame me for your own defence of the Guardian and use of the picture? Can't back pedal from what you said mate. Picture did not accurately reflect the content of the article - does reflect the fears of many people. In a nutshell, just how the fearmongering is used
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 6, 2019 3:58:16 GMT
Perhaps you're happy with youth unemployment in Greece, Italy and Spain? All depends how you work the figures, Part time employment Part time work Part time career Part time education Part time care in the community No contracts No apprenticeship Part cops. Worst of all. All above have no pension but they pay for all the public servants And this has all happened while we've been in the EU. What the fuck have the EU been up to? Incompetent bastards letting us get into such a state whilst looking after Greece and Spain and Portugal and Ireland
How are the figures worked out in the EU hotspots like Greece, Spain and Portugal?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 6, 2019 10:33:32 GMT
So I had the misfortune to spend Christmas and New Year on that hell hole that is the French Riviera The gilet juane are still very active, very angry and very popular. About 60% of all cars have a hi-vis jacket on the dash as a show of solidarity.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 6, 2019 11:01:09 GMT
£, Hasn't done much for the young people, especially in the Midlands and Northern cities and towns, high unemployment , shit jobs etc. The French and Italians still have a massive manufacturing base. Yes still much work to be done, perhaps if we left the EUwe could act in our own self interest... but the Euro is more important as a stage in ever closer Union. The manufacturing base in those countries hasn't done the young people much good Some figures Youth unemployment rate Greece ** 43.2% Spain 33.8% Italy 31.9% Croatia*** 23.6% Cyprus*** 22.4% Portugal 20.8% France 20.4% Finland 18.4% www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/Sweden at 15.5%, the lowest for 30 years! But, the unemployment for middle aged rises, especially among the immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 6, 2019 11:13:25 GMT
So official figures have come out showing 'only' 250,000 people took part in the People's Vote march in October. This petition calling for a No Deal, clean Brexit on March 29th has over 300,000 signatures.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2019 11:45:43 GMT
So official figures have come out showing 'only' 250,000 people took part in the People's Vote march in October. This petition calling for a No Deal, clean Brexit on March 29th has over 300,000 signatures. Signed that one!
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Jan 6, 2019 12:03:27 GMT
I wonder which is easier to do, sign an online petition of give up a day of your own time to go to London.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 6, 2019 12:55:37 GMT
Well, yes. If you're incapable of distinguishing historical fact from bullshit retoric then go ahead. I'm sure you'll feel a lot better for it. Perfectly capable of both, thanks. Your other post perfectly describes, in your own words, exactly what project fear is. Don't know why you're trying to shame me for your own defence of the Guardian and use of the picture? Can't back pedal from what you said mate. Picture did not accurately reflect the content of the article - does reflect the fears of many people. In a nutshell, just how the fearmongering is used Apologies for not being clearer. I don't believe there is such a thing as "project fear". It is a catch-all phrase seemingly being used at every opportunity to play down any possible negative aspect of Brexit. It was first used in recent times in 2014 during the Scottish Independence vote and was resurrected by that paragon of honesty and humility, Boris Johnson, during the Brexit campaign. The phrase itself suggests an organised and co-ordinated campaign to undermine any attempt to highlight any possible disadvantage of Brexit - I do not believe that such a campaign exists. What I do know is that unlike some other potential consequences of Brexit, the Irish border issue and the possible disastrous consequences (a return to the "troubles") have as their basis historical fact - as evidenced by the deaths of thousands of people over several decades and also attacks on security services (as depicted in the Guardian's original photograph). (It also became the major point of disagreement in the Brexit negotiations between the EU and the UK.) Recently, several politicians have tried to trivialise this issue. JRM used the word "phantom" to describe it. A former NI secretary said that the border had not changed for over 100 years! I have no time for people who cry "project fear" (or "wolf") at every (for them) convenient opportunity making no distinction between a conflict which took place on our own territory and, say, just-in-time deliveries for manufacturing industry being compromised. Even freedom-of-movement (which may still affect me and my family directly) isn't as significant to me. Maybe it's just me? But anyway, thanks for the feedback. I wasn't trying to shame you but I do get a bit exasperated by some attitudes to this topic.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 6, 2019 12:56:43 GMT
All depends how you work the figures, Part time employment Part time work Part time career Part time education Part time care in the community No contracts No apprenticeship Part cops. Worst of all. All above have no pension but they pay for all the public servants And this has all happened while we've been in the EU. What the fuck have the EU been up to? Incompetent bastards letting us get into such a state whilst looking after Greece and Spain and Portugal and Ireland
How are the figures worked out in the EU hotspots like Greece, Spain and Portugal?
It's almost as if we're not controlled by Brussels at all!
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 6, 2019 13:04:57 GMT
And this has all happened while we've been in the EU. What the fuck have the EU been up to? Incompetent bastards letting us get into such a state whilst looking after Greece and Spain and Portugal and Ireland
How are the figures worked out in the EU hotspots like Greece, Spain and Portugal?
It's almost as if we're not controlled by Brussels at all! Perhaps it's a question that should be directed to the Italian and Greek governments if they're still governing their economies
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jan 6, 2019 14:42:06 GMT
Perfectly capable of both, thanks. Your other post perfectly describes, in your own words, exactly what project fear is. Don't know why you're trying to shame me for your own defence of the Guardian and use of the picture? Can't back pedal from what you said mate. Picture did not accurately reflect the content of the article - does reflect the fears of many people. In a nutshell, just how the fearmongering is used Apologies for not being clearer. I don't believe there is such a thing as "project fear". It is a catch-all phrase seemingly being used at every opportunity to play down any possible negative aspect of Brexit. It was first used in recent times in 2014 during the Scottish Independence vote and was resurrected by that paragon of honesty and humility, Boris Johnson, during the Brexit campaign. The phrase itself suggests an organised and co-ordinated campaign to undermine any attempt to highlight any possible disadvantage of Brexit - I do not believe that such a campaign exists. What I do know is that unlike some other potential consequences of Brexit, the Irish border issue and the possible disastrous consequences (a return to the "troubles") have as their basis historical fact - as evidenced by the deaths of thousands of people over several decades and also attacks on security services (as depicted in the Guardian's original photograph). (It also became the major point of disagreement in the Brexit negotiations between the EU and the UK.) Recently, several politicians have tried to trivialise this issue. JRM used the word "phantom" to describe it. A former NI secretary said that the border had not changed for over 100 years! I have no time for people who cry "project fear" (or "wolf") at every (for them) convenient opportunity making no distinction between a conflict which took place on our own territory and, say, just-in-time deliveries for manufacturing industry being compromised. Even freedom-of-movement (which may still affect me and my family directly) isn't as significant to me. Maybe it's just me? But anyway, thanks for the feedback. I wasn't trying to shame you but I do get a bit exasperated by some attitudes to this topic. “ potential consequences of Brexit, the Irish border issue and the possible disastrous consequences (a return to the "troubles")” I’m not looking to agree or disagree with you here, but could you explain why the reintroduction of some sort of border in Ireland should provoke “a return to the troubles”? This keeps being trotted out by the media and those who repeat these stories but I’ve not seen anyone actually go through the steps or order of events that will lead to the collapse of “the peace process” and the return of the bombings and violence. Please forgive me if this is a stupid or naive question, but any help from you in understanding this would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 6, 2019 15:43:26 GMT
Remain MP's begin their predictable process to avoid No Deal. Threatening a Democrat type shut down of Government by disrupting the Finance Bill.
Remember. You didn't know what you were voting for so these MP's will sort it out for you.
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Jan 6, 2019 16:47:50 GMT
No Deal is easily avoided though.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 6, 2019 20:27:37 GMT
Apologies for not being clearer. I don't believe there is such a thing as "project fear". It is a catch-all phrase seemingly being used at every opportunity to play down any possible negative aspect of Brexit. It was first used in recent times in 2014 during the Scottish Independence vote and was resurrected by that paragon of honesty and humility, Boris Johnson, during the Brexit campaign. The phrase itself suggests an organised and co-ordinated campaign to undermine any attempt to highlight any possible disadvantage of Brexit - I do not believe that such a campaign exists. What I do know is that unlike some other potential consequences of Brexit, the Irish border issue and the possible disastrous consequences (a return to the "troubles") have as their basis historical fact - as evidenced by the deaths of thousands of people over several decades and also attacks on security services (as depicted in the Guardian's original photograph). (It also became the major point of disagreement in the Brexit negotiations between the EU and the UK.) Recently, several politicians have tried to trivialise this issue. JRM used the word "phantom" to describe it. A former NI secretary said that the border had not changed for over 100 years! I have no time for people who cry "project fear" (or "wolf") at every (for them) convenient opportunity making no distinction between a conflict which took place on our own territory and, say, just-in-time deliveries for manufacturing industry being compromised. Even freedom-of-movement (which may still affect me and my family directly) isn't as significant to me. Maybe it's just me? But anyway, thanks for the feedback. I wasn't trying to shame you but I do get a bit exasperated by some attitudes to this topic. “ potential consequences of Brexit, the Irish border issue and the possible disastrous consequences (a return to the "troubles")” I’m not looking to agree or disagree with you here, but could you explain why the reintroduction of some sort of border in Ireland should provoke “a return to the troubles”? This keeps being trotted out by the media and those who repeat these stories but I’ve not seen anyone actually go through the steps or order of events that will lead to the collapse of “the peace process” and the return of the bombings and violence. Please forgive me if this is a stupid or naive question, but any help from you in understanding this would be much appreciated. As I understand the situation (and I'm the first to admit that my understanding is limited) the Good Friday Agreement would only be acceptable to Republicans if there was an open border between Ireland and NI, whereas Unionists required that the province remains part of the UK. Being in the EU enables this situation (although it looks like a bit of a fiddle to me) and both sides can maintain their own political objectives. A hard border was always a symbol of division - it served as a reminder of all that had gone on before, emphasized the differences between the sides, and was often used as a target by the republicans. The wealth and prosperity facilitated by an open border has also helped to direct attention away from the underlying tensions but the root causes of those tensions still remain. As to how it might happen? It could only take one nutter with a phone and some fertilizer who sees a border post or customs building as a reminder of 800 years of English/British interference and therefore a "legitimate target".
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 6, 2019 20:48:17 GMT
A. Hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would be s disaster. A symbol of the division of the island and a target. None of the parties involved in the Brexit negotiations wants one , nor would they introduce one. The only one who might put pressure on is the EU to try to expose the difficulties of implementing Brexit in the background of the Irish question
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 7, 2019 9:09:29 GMT
There's now a concereted effort by MSM to roll out every shameful remoaner telling us how the public want a 2nd referendum, funny how they aren't asking them witha room full of brexiteers there !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2019 10:04:59 GMT
The shysters in the House of Conmen will vote down the No Deal option, then May's Deal, and then vote for a second referendum - I don't know why there is this whole charade going on, it's been obvious from straight after the "once in a lifetime" vote in June 2016 that they were never going to allow us to leave.
These shits need to be held accountable for their deceit and betrayal by the Leave voters at the next General Election.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jan 7, 2019 10:43:04 GMT
“ potential consequences of Brexit, the Irish border issue and the possible disastrous consequences (a return to the "troubles")” I’m not looking to agree or disagree with you here, but could you explain why the reintroduction of some sort of border in Ireland should provoke “a return to the troubles”? This keeps being trotted out by the media and those who repeat these stories but I’ve not seen anyone actually go through the steps or order of events that will lead to the collapse of “the peace process” and the return of the bombings and violence. Please forgive me if this is a stupid or naive question, but any help from you in understanding this would be much appreciated. As I understand the situation (and I'm the first to admit that my understanding is limited) the Good Friday Agreement would only be acceptable to Republicans if there was an open border between Ireland and NI, whereas Unionists required that the province remains part of the UK. Being in the EU enables this situation (although it looks like a bit of a fiddle to me) and both sides can maintain their own political objectives. A hard border was always a symbol of division - it served as a reminder of all that had gone on before, emphasized the differences between the sides, and was often used as a target by the republicans. The wealth and prosperity facilitated by an open border has also helped to direct attention away from the underlying tensions but the root causes of those tensions still remain. As to how it might happen? It could only take one nutter with a phone and some fertilizer who sees a border post or customs building as a reminder of 800 years of English/British interference and therefore a "legitimate target". Thanks for your reasoned reply. As you said, it only takes “one nutter with a phone and some fertilizer” to set things off again, but I wonder whether public opinion would be so anti-troubles, that it might fizzle out fairly quickly. Obviously, no-one knows for certain. A. Hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would be s disaster. A symbol of the division of the island and a target. None of the parties involved in the Brexit negotiations wants one , nor would they introduce one. The only one who might put pressure on is the EU to try to expose the difficulties of implementing Brexit in the background of the Irish question I wonder what might happen concerning a border if all the economic migrants refugees realised that the easiest way to illegitimately enter the UK is over the Irish border?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 7, 2019 11:27:37 GMT
As I understand the situation (and I'm the first to admit that my understanding is limited) the Good Friday Agreement would only be acceptable to Republicans if there was an open border between Ireland and NI, whereas Unionists required that the province remains part of the UK. Being in the EU enables this situation (although it looks like a bit of a fiddle to me) and both sides can maintain their own political objectives. A hard border was always a symbol of division - it served as a reminder of all that had gone on before, emphasized the differences between the sides, and was often used as a target by the republicans. The wealth and prosperity facilitated by an open border has also helped to direct attention away from the underlying tensions but the root causes of those tensions still remain. As to how it might happen? It could only take one nutter with a phone and some fertilizer who sees a border post or customs building as a reminder of 800 years of English/British interference and therefore a "legitimate target". Thanks for your reasoned reply. As you said, it only takes “one nutter with a phone and some fertilizer” to set things off again, but I wonder whether public opinion would be so anti-troubles, that it might fizzle out fairly quickly. Obviously, no-one knows for certain. A. Hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would be s disaster. A symbol of the division of the island and a target. None of the parties involved in the Brexit negotiations wants one , nor would they introduce one. The only one who might put pressure on is the EU to try to expose the difficulties of implementing Brexit in the background of the Irish question I wonder what might happen concerning a border if all the economic migrants refugees realised that the easiest way to illegitimately enter the UK is over the Irish border? I get that Yeokel. For me 1 Brexit should be implemented 2 An imperfect and insecure system at the Irish border.....NO HARD BORDER implemented AND over time, improved.....If you think about it, it should be no less secure than the existing one in any case, or am I missing something. The border situation should not be used to try to undermine Brexit For me this issue and other issues such as the port situation at Dover should have been actively and with intent and purpose ( beginning to be) addressed and planned for immediately after the Referendum result, at the time when A50 should have been implemented....It is the delay and lack of planning that has encouraged the ( intentional) undermining of BREXIT.....all the discussion about hard / soft, deal/ no deal is not Brexit. And if all the refugees congregated at the " border" that is an EU problem that needs addressing....how did they get there?
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jan 7, 2019 12:16:19 GMT
Thanks for your reasoned reply. As you said, it only takes “one nutter with a phone and some fertilizer” to set things off again, but I wonder whether public opinion would be so anti-troubles, that it might fizzle out fairly quickly. Obviously, no-one knows for certain. I wonder what might happen concerning a border if all the economic migrants refugees realised that the easiest way to illegitimately enter the UK is over the Irish border? I get that Yeokel. For me 1 Brexit should be implemented 2 An imperfect and insecure system at the Irish border.....NO HARD BORDER implemented AND over time, improved.....If you think about it, it should be no less secure than the existing one in any case, or am I missing something. The border situation should not be used to try to undermine Brexit For me this issue and other issues such as the port situation at Dover should have been actively and with intent and purpose ( beginning to be) addressed and planned for immediately after the Referendum result, at the time when A50 should have been implemented....It is the delay and lack of planning that has encouraged the ( intentional) undermining of BREXIT.....all the discussion about hard / soft, deal/ no deal is not Brexit. And if all the refugees congregated at the " border" that is an EU problem that needs addressing....how did they get there? 1 Brexit should be implemented..I’ve no problem with that – The sooner the better, and not this half-arsed BRINO proposal by T.May. Let’s get out, and then start some negotiations while the RHD VWs & BMWs sit inside the German border. 2 An imperfect and insecure system at the Irish border.....NO HARD BORDER implemented AND over time, improved.....If you think about it, it should be no less secure than the existing one in any case, or am I missing something.If we are fully out of the EU, CU, SM etc I can’t see any alternative to some sort of hard/controlled border. However, time will tell. The border situation should not be used to try to undermine Brexit..100% agree. " And if all the refugees congregated at the " border" that is an EU problem that needs addressing....how did they get there?" The snag is that if they are free to wander across from the EU side to the UK side, it immediately becomes 'our' problem, not theirs.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 7, 2019 12:21:25 GMT
[Yeokel wrote]"Thanks for your reasoned reply. As you said, it only takes “one nutter with a phone and some fertilizer” to set things off again, but I wonder whether public opinion would be so anti-troubles, that it might fizzle out fairly quickly. Obviously, no-one knows for certain." It would be preferable if the past would just fade* away very quickly but it isn't certain and it seems unlikely that popular opinion will win out over prejudice. The US senator George Mitchell, who helped to broker the GFA, describes the dangers in this article from the Independent shortly before the 20th aniversary of the GFA.“There could be serious trouble ahead,” he said. “No society is immune from the regressive forces that are part of every problem. “While the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland don’t want to return to the violence of The Troubles, there remain very small but dangerous groups who don’t feel that there should have been any compromise at all, who are still willing to use violence to try to resolve their political differences. “When violence gets going it tends to drive people back into their tribal positions, and so I don’t think anyone can say with absolute confidence that there will never be a return to violence. We have to keep that in mind at all times.”
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 7, 2019 12:40:56 GMT
I get that Yeokel. For me 1 Brexit should be implemented 2 An imperfect and insecure system at the Irish border.....NO HARD BORDER implemented AND over time, improved.....If you think about it, it should be no less secure than the existing one in any case, or am I missing something. The border situation should not be used to try to undermine Brexit For me this issue and other issues such as the port situation at Dover should have been actively and with intent and purpose ( beginning to be) addressed and planned for immediately after the Referendum result, at the time when A50 should have been implemented....It is the delay and lack of planning that has encouraged the ( intentional) undermining of BREXIT.....all the discussion about hard / soft, deal/ no deal is not Brexit. And if all the refugees congregated at the " border" that is an EU problem that needs addressing....how did they get there? 1 Brexit should be implemented..I’ve no problem with that – The sooner the better, and not this half-arsed BRINO proposal by T.May. Let’s get out, and then start some negotiations while the RHD VWs & BMWs sit inside the German border. 2 An imperfect and insecure system at the Irish border.....NO HARD BORDER implemented AND over time, improved.....If you think about it, it should be no less secure than the existing one in any case, or am I missing something.If we are fully out of the EU, CU, SM etc I can’t see any alternative to some sort of hard/controlled border. However, time will tell. The border situation should not be used to try to undermine Brexit..100% agree. " And if all the refugees congregated at the " border" that is an EU problem that needs addressing....how did they get there?" The snag is that if they are free to wander across from the EU side to the UK side, it immediately becomes 'our' problem, not theirs. On numbers 2 and 3 Yeokel; I don't think that the Irish question is resolved, irrespective of BREXIT. Eg at present the joint parliament is suspended. I do think that it is a fragile peace which it is why Brexit needs to be handled sensitively by all parties. I'm very much a pragmatist, so the first thing for me is to implement Brexit....but then to recognise that many arrangements/ agreements still need to be put in place.,... not to do with the border eg joint security/ joint projects....the two( three ?) sovereign groups need to act in good faith to solve the issue s. I obviously don't know the answers but there is talk about checks away from the border, use of technology BUT for starters it would not be any less secure than now. Also , for me, if the issue of refugees crossing the border from Ireland AND we were acting in good faith, it would be partly their problem... they would need to explain how they colluded in allowing them to get from day Syria to Ireland ( deliberate?). Obviously as you say a country's external border should be HARD BUT the Irish question has always been an issue irrespective of BREXIT.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 7, 2019 12:43:34 GMT
For me, 1 Brexit should not be implemented without a second referendum - but I agree that the whole stupid business should be concluded as soon as possible. 2 The border situation should be settled to everyones satisfaction, not least the people who live along both sides of it, but it will take much bigger brains than mine to work out how. I find it surreal that a border - which, among other things, can function to keep people safe - serves, BY IT's ABSENCE to protect people from themselves! I also agree that the delay and lack of planning (or the early triggering of Article 50) has made the implementation of BREXIT much more difficult although I don't get the "undermining" narrative. If I was (just a little bit) more cynical, I might even believe that the delay was intentional to put some distance between the present difficult situation and the much more optimistic noises being made before and shortly after the referendum (Not going to leave the customs union, easiest deal in history etc.) but that would mean crediting the politicians with considerable more intelligence and ability than they appear to possess.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jan 7, 2019 12:51:23 GMT
The shysters in the House of Conmen will vote down the No Deal option, then May's Deal, and then vote for a second referendum - I don't know why there is this whole charade going on, it's been obvious from straight after the "once in a lifetime" vote in June 2016 that they were never going to allow us to leave. These shits need to be held accountable for their deceit and betrayal by the Leave voters at the next General Election. They can't vote down No Deal, they have either approve the deal, revoke A50 or try for an extension but currently we are leaving the EU on 29 Mar 2019 if nothing else is done and I would absolutely love it if we leave on no deal thanks to dear old Gina Miller making the commons vote to approve A50
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 7, 2019 15:57:36 GMT
For me, 1 Brexit should not be implemented without a second referendum - but I agree that the whole stupid business should be concluded as soon as possible. 2 The border situation should be settled to everyones satisfaction, not least the people who live along both sides of it, but it will take much bigger brains than mine to work out how. I find it surreal that a border - which, among other things, can function to keep people safe - serves, BY IT's ABSENCE to protect people from themselves! I also agree that the delay and lack of planning (or the early triggering of Article 50) has made the implementation of BREXIT much more difficult although I don't get the "undermining" narrative. If I was (just a little bit) more cynical, I might even believe that the delay was intentional to put some distance between the present difficult situation and the much more optimistic noises being made before and shortly after the referendum (Not going to leave the customs union, easiest deal in history etc.) but that would mean crediting the politicians with considerable more intelligence and ability than they appear to possess. Weve already had 1 referendum, the result was to leave the EU, leaving the single market, the ECJ etc. as outlined in Camerons customs house speech, why don't you think that result should stand and a 2nd one is needed ?
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 7, 2019 18:06:11 GMT
Soubry gets called a Nazi and wants the police involved. Whilst not condoning these accusations, Leave voters have had to tolerate the left making similar remarks with impunity. It's not a police issue. www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-46785357
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jan 7, 2019 18:08:47 GMT
Soubry gets called a Nazi and wants the police involved. Whilst not condoning these accusations, Leave voters have had to tolerate the left making similar remarks with impunity. It's not a police issue. www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-46785357It's now considered a hate crime calling someone a nazi . Should have called her a dried up old bag instead
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 7, 2019 20:03:37 GMT
For me, 1 Brexit should not be implemented without a second referendum - but I agree that the whole stupid business should be concluded as soon as possible. 2 The border situation should be settled to everyones satisfaction, not least the people who live along both sides of it, but it will take much bigger brains than mine to work out how. I find it surreal that a border - which, among other things, can function to keep people safe - serves, BY IT's ABSENCE to protect people from themselves! I also agree that the delay and lack of planning (or the early triggering of Article 50) has made the implementation of BREXIT much more difficult although I don't get the "undermining" narrative. If I was (just a little bit) more cynical, I might even believe that the delay was intentional to put some distance between the present difficult situation and the much more optimistic noises being made before and shortly after the referendum (Not going to leave the customs union, easiest deal in history etc.) but that would mean crediting the politicians with considerable more intelligence and ability than they appear to possess. Weve already had 1 referendum, the result was to leave the EU, leaving the single market, the ECJ etc. as outlined in Camerons customs house speech, why don't you think that result should stand and a 2nd one is needed ? Cameron's Mansion House speech (which I think you are referring to) laid out the changes which he wanted to see in the UK's relationship to the EU and he made it clear that he wanted to negotiate these issues (I seem to remember that there were 4 main themes, one of which was freedom of movement) but wouldn't rule out leaving the EU if he didn't get what he wanted. At the time of the referendum, I don't recall much noise being made about the EUCJ or the custom's union or anything like that, but there was a lot of fuss made up about immigrants stealing jobs, taking benefits, overburdening the NHS etc; more noise about taking back control, sovereignty and all that). Now, with the inevitable negotiations needed to carry out Brexit being complete (the EU aren't going to spend any more time on them), the present PM seemingly can only name the end of freedom of movement as a benefit of the present deal-there doesn't seem to be much news about the other topics (I think another one was the balance between Euro- and non-Euro nations in the EU or some such bollocks). So I think people's understanding of the situation has changed since the referendum, and some people might want to change their mind - I see nothing wrong or undemocratic about that. But you ask why I don't think the 1st referendum result should stand and a 2nd one is needed? Personally, I think the result was the wrong one, but my opinion is no reason to hold another referendum - I'm not that important. I think a second referendum is needed to take into account of the changes in understanding which I mentioned above. And if the same result is delivered I would accept that (albeit begrudgingly) PROVIDED that this time, I (along with several million others who are directly affected by it) are allowed to take part in it this time - that would be democratic.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 7, 2019 20:16:27 GMT
Weve already had 1 referendum, the result was to leave the EU, leaving the single market, the ECJ etc. as outlined in Camerons customs house speech, why don't you think that result should stand and a 2nd one is needed ? Cameron's Mansion House speech (which I think you are referring to) laid out the changes which he wanted to see in the UK's relationship to the EU and he made it clear that he wanted to negotiate these issues (I seem to remember that there were 4 main themes, one of which was freedom of movement) but wouldn't rule out leaving the EU if he didn't get what he wanted. At the time of the referendum, I don't recall much noise being made about the EUCJ or the custom's union or anything like that, but there was a lot of fuss made up about immigrants stealing jobs, taking benefits, overburdening the NHS etc; more noise about taking back control, sovereignty and all that). Now, with the inevitable negotiations needed to carry out Brexit being complete (the EU aren't going to spend any more time on them), the present PM seemingly can only name the end of freedom of movement as a benefit of the present deal-there doesn't seem to be much news about the other topics (I think another one was the balance between Euro- and non-Euro nations in the EU or some such bollocks). So I think people's understanding of the situation has changed since the referendum, and some people might want to change their mind - I see nothing wrong or undemocratic about that. But you ask why I don't think the 1st referendum result should stand and a 2nd one is needed? Personally, I think the result was the wrong one, but my opinion is no reason to hold another referendum - I'm not that important. I think a second referendum is needed to take into account of the changes in understanding which I mentioned above. And if the same result is delivered I would accept that (albeit begrudgingly) PROVIDED that this time, I (along with several million others who are directly affected by it) are allowed to take part in it this time - that would be democratic. No, it's Chatham House. Here is a small extract from it, listen to it, as should all people whining about a 2nd referendum. The once in a lifetime vote, no 2nd vote, no 2nd referendum, it was quite clear, as was other parts of the speech about leaving the customs union and the ECJ etc.
|
|