|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 7, 2019 20:21:14 GMT
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. And if this promise is not honoured, in the biggest turnout in UK voting history it shows utter contempt for Democracy and betrayal, even worse.... deliberately instigated by politicians....It marks a turning point for the UK.The clever people have put the little people in their place. The Labour party in particular should be up in arms.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 7, 2019 20:27:16 GMT
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. And the British Prime Minister promises to the British people that it is our decision , no body else's......if Brexit isn't delivered it amounts to the government lying and treating the people with contempt The first 20 seconds adds to yours Northy , where the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom tells the people that it is their decision.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 7, 2019 20:30:44 GMT
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. Ah. You wrote "customs house" originally which threw me. Doesn't change my opinion much to be honest. Cameron is yesterday's man and he buggered off pretty quickly after the referendum didn't go as he'd planned. He's also wrong when he said that there'd be no more negotiation after the vote - but this is all peripheral to my main point of not having been allowed to take part in the original referendum- with over a million other British expats.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 7, 2019 20:43:17 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-46785357But this looks like a police issue.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 7, 2019 20:53:50 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-46785357But this looks like a police issue. Piss all there to get worked up about In fact he was far more polite and less intimidating than your average Muslim protester and sod all is done to them
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 7, 2019 20:54:04 GMT
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. Ah. You wrote "customs house" originally which threw me. Doesn't change my opinion much to be honest. Cameron is yesterday's man and he buggered off pretty quickly after the referendum didn't go as he'd planned. He's also wrong when he said that there'd be no more negotiation after the vote - but this is all peripheral to my main point of not having been allowed to take part in the original referendum- with over a million other British expats. Ah apologies, customs house must have been stirred up from the grey matter from the RN days. I used to frequent a Pub in Chatham called Command house.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 7, 2019 22:01:42 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-46785357But this looks like a police issue. No more infammatory than the slogans that the 'Sharia4UK/British Forces go to Hell' chaps were bandying about. I'd expect the police to treat/punish this guy the same as them.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 7, 2019 22:10:42 GMT
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. Ah. You wrote "customs house" originally which threw me. Doesn't change my opinion much to be honest. Cameron is yesterday's man and he buggered off pretty quickly after the referendum didn't go as he'd planned. He's also wrong when he said that there'd be no more negotiation after the vote - but this is all peripheral to my main point of not having been allowed to take part in the original referendum- with over a million other British expats. You forfeited that right when you moved abroad. I'm not knocking you being an ex-pat by the way- that's ultimately my goal. And it's hardly a unique situation- Scottish ex-pats couldn't vote in the independence referendum.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 7, 2019 22:18:42 GMT
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. And if this promise is not honoured, in the biggest turnout in UK voting history it shows utter contempt for Democracy and betrayal, even worse.... deliberately instigated by politicians....It marks a turning point for the UK.The clever people have put the little people in their place. The Labour party in particular should be up in arms. This version of the Labour Party couldn't give two shits about the working class north- too busy whoring itself out to the metropolitain Guardian crowd. If Corbyn publically backs Brexit he loses the millennial vote, if he goes the other way he loses the traditional Labour heartlands. He makes Paddy Ashdown's Lib Dems look decisive.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 8, 2019 9:57:03 GMT
So it's a New Year and time for a genuine question for Remain voters. What did you vote for? Which of the 5 official EU futures were discussed throughout the referendum campaign and which were on the ballot paper and which one did you tick? Five scenarios for Europe by 2025 - europa.eu (future for Europe not EU )
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 8, 2019 10:30:52 GMT
So it's a New Year and time for a genuine question for Remain voters. What did you vote for? Which of the 5 official EU futures were discussed throughout the referendum campaign and which were on the ballot paper and which one did you tick? Five scenarios for Europe by 2025 - europa.eu (future for Europe not EU ) I’ll be interested to see what there New Democratic future Looks like As they have never been interested in democracy before Maybe there getting shit scared there jobs for life vanity project is on the point of collapse
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 8, 2019 11:09:17 GMT
The up and coming new biys in the EU won't have the UK's interest at heart.( Also see Manfrid Weber)..,.... fancy agreeing to give control of your children's future to remote others, with their own agenda. ...... Brussels commentators maintain that Brexit details are determined by their respective number twos: Martin Selmayr (Chief of Staff to Juncker since 2014, and – controversially – General Secretary of the European Commission since March 2018) and Sabine Weyand, deputy to Barnier. Both happen to be German. Indeed, Die Welt, the leading German daily, early on in the negotiations did a feature titled ‘The top German players in the Brexit poker game’, with a certain pride, on their central role in the coming talks. It has been clear from the beginning that the mission of senior Brussels officials has been to punish Britain for Brexit. Selmayr and Weyand appear to be no exception to this. As early as May 2017, the Daily Telegraph reported that British officials believed that Mr Selmayr, an “arch-federalist”, was determined to poison the negotiations in a bid to “punish” the UK for leaving the European Union. It is Selmayr who stands accused of having leaked the details of two dinners between Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Although he denies this. The accounts claimed May “begged for help” and described May as appearing “anxious”, “tormented”, “despondent and discouraged,” and cruelly described how our Prime Minister appeared to be having sleepless nights. www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/01/greg-hands-the-two-vengeful-eu-officials-who-are-driving-the-brexit-talks.html
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Jan 8, 2019 13:30:10 GMT
So it's a New Year and time for a genuine question for Remain voters. What did you vote for? I voted Remain. You voted Leave. My and your reasons do not matter. They were not on the voting slip. Which of the 5 official EU futures were discussed throughout the referendum campaign and which were on the ballot paper and which one did you tick? Five scenarios for Europe by 2025 - europa.eu (future for Europe not EU )
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 8, 2019 14:54:23 GMT
Ah. You wrote "customs house" originally which threw me. Doesn't change my opinion much to be honest. Cameron is yesterday's man and he buggered off pretty quickly after the referendum didn't go as he'd planned. He's also wrong when he said that there'd be no more negotiation after the vote - but this is all peripheral to my main point of not having been allowed to take part in the original referendum- with over a million other British expats. Ah apologies, customs house must have been stirred up from the grey matter from the RN days. I used to frequent a Pub in Chatham called Command house. No worries.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 14:56:04 GMT
Fantastic summation by this Australian news lady.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 8, 2019 15:08:57 GMT
Ah. You wrote "customs house" originally which threw me. Doesn't change my opinion much to be honest. Cameron is yesterday's man and he buggered off pretty quickly after the referendum didn't go as he'd planned. He's also wrong when he said that there'd be no more negotiation after the vote - but this is all peripheral to my main point of not having been allowed to take part in the original referendum- with over a million other British expats. You forfeited that right when you moved abroad. I'm not knocking you being an ex-pat by the way- that's ultimately my goal. And it's hardly a unique situation- Scottish ex-pats couldn't vote in the independence referendum. I did lose some of my rights by leaving the UK (a long time ago) but, from my perspective, they were taken away rather than deliberately relinquished. It's ironic that expat voting rites were granted during Thatcher's time and capped at 15 years by Blair's government. The bottom line is that the demographic was skewed and so the methodology behind the referendum was compromised. This has worked out better for some than for others (which is inevitable, of course) but still grates if you're one of the "others" and you've been waiting for a couple of years for some clarity. Do you have fixed plans already for your emigration? I hope the changes to the Freedom of Movement conditions don't affect them.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 8, 2019 16:29:19 GMT
You forfeited that right when you moved abroad. I'm not knocking you being an ex-pat by the way- that's ultimately my goal. And it's hardly a unique situation- Scottish ex-pats couldn't vote in the independence referendum. I did lose some of my rights by leaving the UK (a long time ago) but, from my perspective, they were taken away rather than deliberately relinquished. It's ironic that expat voting rites were granted during Thatcher's time and capped at 15 years by Blair's government. The bottom line is that the demographic was skewed and so the methodology behind the referendum was compromised. This has worked out better for some than for others (which is inevitable, of course) but still grates if you're one of the "others" and you've been waiting for a couple of years for some clarity. Do you have fixed plans already for your emigration? I hope the changes to the Freedom of Movement conditions don't affect them. It's a few years down the line but it is what it is. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it- I can't see it being anymore of a hindrance than travelling anywhere outside the EU now.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jan 8, 2019 16:38:51 GMT
Fantastic summation by this Australian news lady. That’s the Aussies for you.....saying it how it is. Couldn’t imagine them tolerating a capitulation of these proportions.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 8, 2019 18:55:34 GMT
It's simple really. The people were asked if they wanted to be in the EU. They said " No"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 19:04:41 GMT
Fantastic summation by this Australian news lady. Superb summary
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 8, 2019 20:04:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 8, 2019 20:44:32 GMT
Hasn’t altered sod all another pointless non binding vote won by a grandstanding ineffective opposition All it means is we will spend a little less on a no deal if the coward MPs fail to back a deal Brexit is still very much on
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 8, 2019 20:53:29 GMT
Hasn’t altered sod all another pointless non binding vote won by a grandstanding ineffective opposition All it means is we will spend a little less on a no deal if the coward MPs fail to back a deal Brexit is still very much on I get the subjective impression that some Remainers are now in fear of the enormity of what they are doing...in the realisation of what Remaining in the EU actually means for the UK. Capitulation for the country. But some Remainers feel that they have no where else to go.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 8, 2019 20:57:47 GMT
Partick It is difficult for Remainers now to argue that " we are not prepared for Brexit". It is clear evidence of politicians openly opposing what the electorate have said that they want, rightly or wrongly. An affront to Democracy in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 8, 2019 21:25:48 GMT
Partick It is difficult for Remainers now to argue that " we are not prepared for Brexit". It is clear evidence of politicians openly opposing what the electorate have said that they want, rightly or wrongly. An affront to Democracy in my opinion. I’m sure they would argue that parliamentary democracy trumps plebiscite democracy. And while they may be right in principle, parliament had clearly conceded on this occasion to the people. Well they did until the people voted the wrong way!
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 8, 2019 21:34:10 GMT
Partick It is difficult for Remainers now to argue that " we are not prepared for Brexit". It is clear evidence of politicians openly opposing what the electorate have said that they want, rightly or wrongly. An affront to Democracy in my opinion. I’m sure they would argue that parliamentary democracy trumps plebiscite democracy. And while they may be right in principle, parliament had clearly conceded on this occasion to the people. Well they did until the people voted the wrong way! I agree Partick, and I 100 % support parliamentary democracy but " people" in my opinion understand and would like to believe in simple concepts such as trust and , dare I say it, honour. Simply , however it is dressed up, the " government" asked the " people" if they wanted to leave or Remain in the EU. In my opinion , working class people, who are not devious but are honest and were told that their decision would be honoured, gave their answer. There is a danger that they are being cheated. Most people don't like cheats.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 8, 2019 21:50:45 GMT
Fifth columnists
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 9, 2019 10:05:42 GMT
When there is a vote to stop us relinquishing our membership of the European Union, parliament would've killed Brexit. As far as I'm aware, this vote didn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 9, 2019 10:19:10 GMT
We simply are not being told the full truth, in a honest and clear way, in the stop Brexit agenda.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 9, 2019 10:32:33 GMT
When there is a vote to stop us relinquishing our membership of the European Union, parliament would've killed Brexit. As far as I'm aware, this vote didn't do that. As a consequence of that vote, what is now possible is Brino not Brexit
|
|