|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 10, 2019 18:58:10 GMT
Yes, absolutely 100%. This is why referenda are anti-democratic and devisive and shouldn’t be used in a parliamentary democracy. To be democratic you have to keep repeating them once you start or politicians need to be brave enough to ignore them for the decisive abdication of responsibility they are. What should the question be if a 2nd referendum takes place ? That’s a tricky one. I would do something like this in 2 stages: 1. Leave or Remain. 2. If a majority vote to Leave in answer to Q1, should we: A) Leave with no deal; or B) Leave with May’s deal If May’s deal is voted down, we could change to one question which is remain or leave woth no deal. Or if there is a plan B option, insert that in to 2B above |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 19:03:16 GMT
Yes, absolutely 100%. This is why referenda are anti-democratic and devisive and shouldn’t be used in a parliamentary democracy. To be democratic you have to keep repeating them once you start or politicians need to be brave enough to ignore them for the decisive abdication of responsibility they are. What should the question be if a 2nd referendum takes place ? As the decision to Leave was already taken in June 2016, if there is to be a second referendum (and I don't think there should be one) then IMO the question should be : A) Leave with No Deal or B) Leave with May’s Deal But I know those shysters in the House of Conmen would never agree to that. Their preference would be A) Remain or B) Remain |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jan 10, 2019 19:05:31 GMT
What should the question be if a 2nd referendum takes place ? That’s a tricky one. I would do something like this in 2 stages: 1. Leave or Remain. 2. If a majority vote to Leave in answer to Q1, should we: A) Leave with no deal; or B) Leave with May’s deal If May’s deal is voted down, we could change to one question which is remain or leave woth no deal. Or if there is a plan B option, insert that in to 2B above The reason I ask is the blatant lies coming from the remain camp suggesting that they want to respect the vote but want to let the people decide on the deal , however parliament won't allow Mays deal , parliament won't allow no deal . Labor want to negotiate a new deal which Brussels says it won't do . What is the point ? . What will happen if the leave voters win again ? When parliament won't approve a deal of any description that involves leaving |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 10, 2019 19:11:19 GMT
Thanks. Spelling was never my strong point. Was there a point or question in your above post for me to respond to? No, there isn’t, just some insults. Obviously you have no input to add to the debate save to point out spelling mistakes and make odd insults about comfort blankets. “Spelling was never my strong point” I agree, you do seem to have a problem with accuracy which I’ve queried with you a few times recently but not received any response from you. But you did, at least, respond to ‘insults’ as you call them or ‘gentle goading’ as I thought of them. Here are two or three of examples for you… “ Our government chooses to make this 20%. So it is our domestic law that charges a higher rate of VAT on energy than under EU law. Blame our government, not the EU.” Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but as a late entry in to this part of the thread, could I point out that the vat rate on domestic energy is 5%? For business use, it is 20% but as most business reclaims VAT paid, it is effectively 0%. Where do you get your 20% figure from, Oggy, or is it just another of your fantasies and lies made up to support your belief of how shit the UK is compared with the EU? That would be the party that the Liberals saw fit to form a coalition government with only a few short years ago, would it? Exactly...... You've finally got it. When we joined, we didn't think we were joining anything other than a trading block called the Common Market as that's what we were told at the time. Either we were lied to then or, with its mission creep, the Common Market, EEC or EU (choose which ever alias you prefer) has expanded itself in to so much more than what we thought we were joining and we've never been asked to approve those major changes until 2016. And, once we were eventually consulted about it we decided that we want 'OUT'. Or, most of those of us who cared enough to vote do anyway. It has become something much larger than that which we joined, and it has ambitions to be come much larger still and the majority of those who care about this voted to leave. I’ve been quite hurt that you’ve been ignoring me and am glad to see we are on chatting terms again now. Well I apologise you feel I have ignored you! To be honest (and I am sure you can imagine) I get a lot of people replying to my posts and I do not always have time to respond to each and every one. I shall now respond to yours above though: The standard VAT on energy is 20% for businesses, 5% for domestic. See this: www.inprovaenergy.com/blog/are-you-paying-the-right-amount-of-vat-on-your-electricity-and-gas-billsJust because some businesses can reclaim VAT, it doesn't change the fact that the standard VAT rate for businesses is 20%. The lib dems formed a coalition government with the disgusting Tories and mitigated their damage to the country. Let's look at a few coalition policies: Gay marriage - that was a lib dem policy SEIS and EIS tax relief - lib dem policy Increase the personal allowance - lib dem policy Apprenticeship investments - lib dem policy Pupil premium in schools - lib dem policy Shared parental leave - lib dem policy those are just from the top of my head. All those would not have happened if the lib dems were not part of the coalition. The tories took the credit for it obviously and shafted the lib dems. The lib dems are remembered for the tory policy of increasing tuition fees. And finally, yes the EU has changed a lot over the years. Some things are good, some are bad. It is not the same from the original vote at all. Of course not. A lot has changed in the world since then and it is a far more globalised world. But leaving the EU will not sort out our domestic problems. It will worsen them. Has that satisfied you Yeokel?? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 10, 2019 19:12:01 GMT
What should the question be if a 2nd referendum takes place ? As the decision to Leave was already taken in June 2016, if there is to be a second referendum (and I don't think there should be one) then IMO the question should be : A) Leave with No Deal or B) Leave with May’s Deal But I know those shysters in the House of Conmen would never agree to that. Their preference would be A) Remain or B) Remain So no chance to change your mind then? That's totally anti-democratic. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 10, 2019 19:12:57 GMT
That’s a tricky one. I would do something like this in 2 stages: 1. Leave or Remain. 2. If a majority vote to Leave in answer to Q1, should we: A) Leave with no deal; or B) Leave with May’s deal If May’s deal is voted down, we could change to one question which is remain or leave woth no deal. Or if there is a plan B option, insert that in to 2B above The reason I ask is the blatant lies coming from the remain camp suggesting that they want to respect the vote but want to let the people decide on the deal , however parliament won't allow Mays deal , parliament won't allow no deal . Labor want to negotiate a new deal which Brussels says it won't do . What is the point ? . What will happen if the leave voters win again ? When parliament won't approve a deal of any description that involves leaving If leave wins again, the public will have given a clear indication of HOW we leave with my options. And so we follow that - simple. But you have made a compelling argument for a second referendum in your post. |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jan 10, 2019 19:17:44 GMT
The reason I ask is the blatant lies coming from the remain camp suggesting that they want to respect the vote but want to let the people decide on the deal , however parliament won't allow Mays deal , parliament won't allow no deal . Labor want to negotiate a new deal which Brussels says it won't do . What is the point ? . What will happen if the leave voters win again ? When parliament won't approve a deal of any description that involves leaving If leave wins again, the public will have given a clear indication of HOW we leave with my options. And so we follow that - simple. But you have made a compelling argument for a second referendum in your post. How will another leave vote indicative how we want to leave ? It just brings us back to where we are presently. All dressed up with nowhere to go |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 10, 2019 19:20:20 GMT
I do think that some Remainers have boxed themselves in a corner. Whilst still trying to win the argument, even though the substantive debate and decision was made prior to June 2016, they are still trying to get their own way , at the expense of undermining our Democracy, something that is particularly insulting to many of the working class who felt passionate enough to vote for perhaps the only time. But more importantly to argue for surrendering more of our Sovereignty to a remote German , and to lesser extent, French dominated EU is , in my opinion, a very serious and uncomfortable position to hold. The direction of travel of the EU is clear, and the decision makers in Brussels certainly will not have the interests of tge UK at heart. Sheer recklessness...... www.thetimes.co.uk/article/france-and-germany-join-forces-as-a-single-superpower-fjf3bgv60France and Germany are to forge shared defence, foreign and economic policies in an unprecedented “twinning” pact regarded as a prototype for the future of the European Union. The up and coming new boys in the EU won't have the UK's interest at heart.( Also see Manfrid Weber)..,.... ...... 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.htmlPresumably you think that of the existing political parties, only the Tories should be able to stand at the bext election then? Otherwise it allows people to change their mind, and you oppose that because once the will of the people, always the will of the people, right? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 10, 2019 19:20:58 GMT
If leave wins again, the public will have given a clear indication of HOW we leave with my options. And so we follow that - simple. But you have made a compelling argument for a second referendum in your post. How will another leave vote indicative how we want to leave ? It just brings us back to where we are presently. All dressed up with nowhere to go Not if you specify what the leave vote is for in the referendum question, as I have above |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 10, 2019 19:52:35 GMT
I do think that some Remainers have boxed themselves in a corner. Whilst still trying to win the argument, even though the substantive debate and decision was made prior to June 2016, they are still trying to get their own way , at the expense of undermining our Democracy, something that is particularly insulting to many of the working class who felt passionate enough to vote for perhaps the only time. But more importantly to argue for surrendering more of our Sovereignty to a remote German , and to lesser extent, French dominated EU is , in my opinion, a very serious and uncomfortable position to hold. The direction of travel of the EU is clear, and the decision makers in Brussels certainly will not have the interests of tge UK at heart. Sheer recklessness...... www.thetimes.co.uk/article/france-and-germany-join-forces-as-a-single-superpower-fjf3bgv60France and Germany are to forge shared defence, foreign and economic policies in an unprecedented “twinning” pact regarded as a prototype for the future of the European Union. The up and coming new boys in the EU won't have the UK's interest at heart.( Also see Manfrid Weber)..,.... ...... 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.htmlPresumably you think that of the existing political parties, only the Tories should be able to stand at the bext election then? Otherwise it allows people to change their mind, and you oppose that because once the will of the people, always the will of the people, right? Sorry Oggy , I don't know what you are talking about again. I would not presume too much because you seem to get the facts wrong when they are blindingly obvious, without needing to presume. Anyway , to be clear on your deviation, I think anyone who wishes to do so should stand for election.....I also think that they should honour their promises made should they be elected. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 19:54:13 GMT
As the decision to Leave was already taken in June 2016, if there is to be a second referendum (and I don't think there should be one) then IMO the question should be : A) Leave with No Deal or B) Leave with May’s Deal But I know those shysters in the House of Conmen would never agree to that. Their preference would be A) Remain or B) Remain So no chance to change your mind then? That's totally anti-democratic. We can't keep revisiting the same point as 2 and a bit years ago or we'd never achieve anything. The decision to leave was made, and the only reason there is this constant clamour for a 2nd referendum is because the Remainers won't accept the first result (nor will the shysters in the House of Conmen). How many other referenda in the past have been so vociferously debated and had obstacle after obstacle raised to thwart the referenda results ? Er...precisely NONE ! The original vote n 2016 was labelled by Cameron as a "once in a lifetime" and there would be "no second vote", which seemed pretty clear to me and no doubt millions of other voters. Anyway I'm not going to start going round and round in circles with you debating the same points as you have done with numerous others - you have your stance, and I have mine.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 19:56:32 GMT
Presumably you think that of the existing political parties, only the Tories should be able to stand at the bext election then? Otherwise it allows people to change their mind, and you oppose that because once the will of the people, always the will of the people, right? Sorry Oggy , I don't know what you are talking about again. I would not presume too much because you seem to get the facts wrong when they are blindingly obvious, without needing to presume. Anyway , to be clear on your deviation, I think anyone who wishes to do so should stand for election.....I also think that they should honour their promises made should they be elected. Spot on Big John - but these bunch of shysters in the House of Conmen are so far removed from reality they think they're above all this. Well I hope they are held to account at the next General Election ! |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 10, 2019 20:12:22 GMT
What should the question be if a 2nd referendum takes place ? That’s a tricky one. I would do something like this in 2 stages: 1. Leave or Remain. 2. If a majority vote to Leave in answer to Q1, should we: A) Leave with no deal; or B) Leave with May’s deal If May’s deal is voted down, we could change to one question which is remain or leave woth no deal. Or if there is a plan B option, insert that in to 2B above We've had a People's vote and the people voted to Leave. The question and the meaning of leave was made clear and is clear. A deal is a different issue, simply s mechanism in this context to thwart Leave |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 10, 2019 21:26:10 GMT
That’s a tricky one. I would do something like this in 2 stages: 1. Leave or Remain. 2. If a majority vote to Leave in answer to Q1, should we: A) Leave with no deal; or B) Leave with May’s deal If May’s deal is voted down, we could change to one question which is remain or leave woth no deal. Or if there is a plan B option, insert that in to 2B above We've had a People's vote and the people voted to Leave. The question and the meaning of leave was made clear and is clear. A deal is a different issue, simply s mechanism in this context to thwart Leave Good to see that you admit leaving and the deal we leave with are two different things. One we've voted on to (to leave) and the other there has never been a vote on. So May's deal, or any other way put forward that does actually involve leaving the European union is not overruling the decision of the referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 10, 2019 21:31:29 GMT
Not only does the WA " place control of aspects of our national security in foreign hands " so does continued membership of the EU. The only sensible route is to Leave.
Worth reading the letter in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 10, 2019 21:31:56 GMT
We've had a People's vote and the people voted to Leave. The question and the meaning of leave was made clear and is clear. A deal is a different issue, simply s mechanism in this context to thwart Leave Good to see that you admit leaving and the deal we leave with are two different things. One we've voted on to (to leave) and the other there has never been a vote on. So May's deal, or any other way put forward that does actually involve leaving the European union is not overruling the decision of the referendum. It does if " the deal' undermines the decision to leave...by remaining in the CU, SM and jurisdiction of the EU ct |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 10, 2019 21:57:36 GMT
Not only does the WA " place control of aspects of our national security in foreign hands " so does continued membership of the EU. The only sensible route is to Leave. Worth reading the letter in my opinion. Where does it say "so does continued membership of the EU"? |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 10, 2019 21:59:05 GMT
Not only does the WA " place control of aspects of our national security in foreign hands " so does continued membership of the EU. The only sensible route is to Leave. Worth reading the letter in my opinion. Where does it say "so does continued membership of the EU"? I'm saying that, hence no quotation marks, through the continued surrender of our Sovereignty |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 10, 2019 22:14:14 GMT
Bring on that 2nd referendum. I've got a thousand of these new facts from the EU.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 10, 2019 22:22:30 GMT
Bring on that 2nd referendum. I've got a thousand of these new facts from the EU. Mind you Roger, the WHOLE WORLD is now saying that Brexit is a mistake so really there can't be much of an argument against that....I have heard that if things don't go to plan as we approach March 29 GOD is going to intervene and point out the error of Leavers' ways. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 10, 2019 22:28:34 GMT
Integrity
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 22:57:39 GMT
It's a pity that all MP's don't have the same levels of honesty and integrity that that MP does. They voted for the referendum in 2015, and promised to honour the result only because they never thought Leave would win. Since the vote they've systematically contrived, plotted and connived and thrown as many obstacles in the way to reach the situation we're in right now. They have no intention of allowing any form of deal to be approved and have no intention that we will ever be allowed to Leave. My own MP is on record as a Remainer but the constituency clearly voted Leave with a sizeable majority, so all those voters views are being ignored, and this is being repeated all over the country. Absolutely disgraceful ! |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 11, 2019 8:19:18 GMT
A few young people who seem to be concerned about democracy... just a snippet of views.
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 11, 2019 8:41:10 GMT
What should the question be if a 2nd referendum takes place ? That’s a tricky one. I would do something like this in 2 stages: 1. Leave or Remain. 2. If a majority vote to Leave in answer to Q1, should we: A) Leave with no deal; or B) Leave with May’s deal If May’s deal is voted down, we could change to one question which is remain or leave woth no deal. Or if there is a plan B option, insert that in to 2B above weve already had the vote for number 1, don't you remember  |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 11, 2019 8:42:56 GMT
I do believe that part of the EU plan is / would be to spread industry and development across the whole of the continent of Europe. Nothing wrong with that you might say. But I don't believe that the EU has the interests of the UK at heart and this equality might mean less opportunities for British people. I don't want that. I believe that their real priorities is the mainstream continent of Europe and we are seen as an " awkward member of the club, who are relatively rich and can afford to subsidise others" Also there had got to be trust over a wide area that everyone is playing by the same rules , when regulations and directives are imposed too down, from the centre..I'm not convinced that everyone does abide by the rules. As we are seeing with our own parliament, the political are devious in trying to get their own way, irrespective of the wishes of the population....i believe that blind trust in the EU politicians is a bit naïve. Although there may be accusations of Xenophobia ,I don't think so, more like realism , in that if you don't look after your own in this current climate, no one else will. www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/10/eu-rules-left-slovakia-free-entice-jaguar-land-rover-uk-110m/amp/?__twitter_impression=true |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 11, 2019 8:48:49 GMT
A few young people who seem to be concerned about democracy... just a snippet of views. they want to leave and they aren't old, hhhmmm ...... |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 11, 2019 8:56:12 GMT
I do believe that part of the EU plan is / would be to spread industry and development across the whole of the continent of Europe. Nothing wrong with that you might say. But I don't believe that the EU has the interests of the UK at heart and this equality might mean less opportunities for British people. I don't want that. I believe that their real priorities is the mainstream continent of Europe and we are seen as an " awkward member of the club, who are relatively rich and can afford to subsidise others" Also there had got to be trust over a wide area that everyone is playing by the same rules , when regulations and directives are imposed too down, from the centre..I'm not convinced that everyone does abide by the rules. As we are seeing with our own parliament, the political are devious in trying to get their own way, irrespective of the wishes of the population....i believe that blind trust in the EU politicians is a bit naïve. Although there may be accusations of Xenophobia ,I don't think so, more like realism , in that if you don't look after your own in this current climate, no one else will. www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/10/eu-rules-left-slovakia-free-entice-jaguar-land-rover-uk-110m/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueI was arguing (trying to educate the wife) last night over this Jaguar thing, about our subsidies to the EU and how they are used to take away British jobs, she jsut couldnt get that EU money isn't our money we give them, that they don't have this magic bottomless bank account for 'EU funded projects'. I was on about this Slovakia plant and she said ' well they should look after themselves, they are a poorer country, charity begins at home' Charity begins at home unles you are the UK I asked?  |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 11, 2019 9:00:43 GMT
I do believe that part of the EU plan is / would be to spread industry and development across the whole of the continent of Europe. Nothing wrong with that you might say. But I don't believe that the EU has the interests of the UK at heart and this equality might mean less opportunities for British people. I don't want that. I believe that their real priorities is the mainstream continent of Europe and we are seen as an " awkward member of the club, who are relatively rich and can afford to subsidise others" Also there had got to be trust over a wide area that everyone is playing by the same rules , when regulations and directives are imposed too down, from the centre..I'm not convinced that everyone does abide by the rules. As we are seeing with our own parliament, the political are devious in trying to get their own way, irrespective of the wishes of the population....i believe that blind trust in the EU politicians is a bit naïve. Although there may be accusations of Xenophobia ,I don't think so, more like realism , in that if you don't look after your own in this current climate, no one else will. www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/10/eu-rules-left-slovakia-free-entice-jaguar-land-rover-uk-110m/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
The Commission said in a statement that the public support for the British carmaker to build a new car plant in the Nitra region of Slovakia was necessary to ensure the plant was in Europe rather than in Mexico. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2019 9:11:59 GMT
A few young people who seem to be concerned about democracy... just a snippet of views. I found that to be a bit of an eye opener tbh. I was fully expecting them to be thumping the table for a second referendum but they seem to have a true grasp on the situation and the democratic "once in a lifetime" vote taken in June 2016 - good for them ! I wonder how representative that is of the view of young people across the country ? |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 11, 2019 11:22:51 GMT
A few young people who seem to be concerned about democracy... just a snippet of views. I found that to be a bit of an eye opener tbh. I was fully expecting them to be thumping the table for a second referendum but they seem to have a true grasp on the situation and the democratic "once in a lifetime" vote taken in June 2016 - good for them ! I wonder how representative that is of the view of young people across the country ? Also, Channel 4 admitted they stacked the audience 66-33 in favour of Remain to "represent" that age group. |
|
