You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » The Off Topic Room
It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:57 am View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Democracy under threat.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 11005
Team Supported: Darlington
I voted to remain in the EU and we lost the public vote. I think democracy is under serious threat if the result of that vote was ignored and another vote held. If that did happen, I would now vote to leave to make sure that that first democratic vote was upheld.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 11005
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlo_Pete wrote:
I voted to remain in the EU and we lost the public vote. I think democracy is under serious threat if the result of that vote was ignored and another vote held. If that did happen, I would now vote to leave to make sure that that first democratic vote was upheld.
Why?

Surely if there was another vote people should vote for what they want, if more voted remain it would mean that on reflection people think it would be better to stay in the EU.

Do you think the result would be different if people voted now (just voting on the topic rather than doing what you would do)?

If you think the vote would stay the same then there would be no reason to change your vote, if you think that more would vote remain then tbh I struggle to work out your thought process, I guess you probably voted remain by accident and would use the opportunity to put it right.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

If the remain vote had won, how do you think they would react if people who wanted brexit now tried to force another vote? They rightly would be up in arms, saying there had been a democratic vote and the voters had wanted to remain. You can't have the best of 3 votes in British politics. The majority of people voted to leave, so that is what I believe should happen, even though I voted to remain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:13 pm
Posts: 280
Team Supported: Darlington
If the remain vote had won, how do you think they would react if people who wanted brexit now tried to force another vote? They rightly would be up in arms, saying there had been a democratic vote and the voters had wanted to remain. You can't have the best of 3 votes in British politics. The majority of people voted to leave, so that is what I believe should happen, even though I voted to remain.[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned it's now just history; the government of the day has had to get on with the fall out as best they can.
Me, I'm not sure whether being in or out is a good thing or a bad thing, what I do get fed up with is people going on and on about the result, or having more referendums till they get the outcome they want, like the S Nats.

One referendum's enough surely.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 11005
Team Supported: Darlington
Feethams 1966 wrote:
If the remain vote had won, how do you think they would react if people who wanted brexit now tried to force another vote? They rightly would be up in arms, saying there had been a democratic vote and the voters had wanted to remain. You can't have the best of 3 votes in British politics. The majority of people voted to leave, so that is what I believe should happen, even though I voted to remain.


As far as I'm concerned it's now just history; the government of the day has had to get on with the fall out as best they can.
Me, I'm not sure whether being in or out is a good thing or a bad thing, what I do get fed up with is people going on and on about the result, or having more referendums till they get the outcome they want, like the S Nats.

One referendum's enough surely.[/quote]

Exactly my view, the people have spoken and that is it. Another referendum would undermine our democracy, that so many people have died for over the years.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:58 pm
Posts: 633
Location: darlington
Team Supported: Darlington
Totally agree with DP, no way do we have another vote, and I voted to stay in


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
Brexit in any of its forms, but particularly No Deal or WTO terms, will be highly damaging to this country for generations. This wasn’t what was promised by Farage, Johnson, Fox, Davis, et al. “Sunlit Uplands”, “Easiest Deal in the World”, “Better Terms than we have now”, etc. For these broken promises alone, there should be a vote to see if the public wish to accept what is currently on offer which is (a) No Deal; (b) Bad Deal; or (c) Remain if a majority have changed their minds.
Democracy is an ongoing process, not a single event and next March will be almost 3 years after the event - there is so much more information available regarding Brexit. It would be foolish not to take advantage of that info. Did anyone vote to be poorer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 2612
Location: Milford Haven
Team Supported: Darlington
The EU is coming apart at the seams anyway. Why would you want a seat at the table when the roof fall in? I'd rather be outside watching the dust plume. :roll:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3464
Team Supported: Darlington
QuakerPete wrote:
Brexit in any of its forms, but particularly No Deal or WTO terms, will be highly damaging to this country for generations. This wasn’t what was promised by Farage, Johnson, Fox, Davis, et al. “Sunlit Uplands”, “Easiest Deal in the World”, “Better Terms than we have now”, etc. For these broken promises alone, there should be a vote to see if the public wish to accept what is currently on offer which is (a) No Deal; (b) Bad Deal; or (c) Remain if a majority have changed their minds.
Democracy is an ongoing process, not a single event and next March will be almost 3 years after the event - there is so much more information available regarding Brexit. It would be foolish not to take advantage of that info. Did anyone vote to be poorer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



During the campaign there was doublespeak, lies and dodgy stats emanating aplenty from Cameron,Osbourne and Co - in fact the presentation of information from both sides was appalling.

Politicians break promises, they lie, they do it all the time, it's nothing new - and if we were to rerun elections every time something dubious happens we'd wear out our shoes walking to the polling station every fortnight.

Having yet another referendum would make things much worse, our divided country would become a powder keg - anyway, it's not going to happen.

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Brexit in any of its forms, but particularly No Deal or WTO terms, will be highly damaging to this country for generations. This wasn’t what was promised by Farage, Johnson, Fox, Davis, et al. “Sunlit Uplands”, “Easiest Deal in the World”, “Better Terms than we have now”, etc. For these broken promises alone, there should be a vote to see if the public wish to accept what is currently on offer which is (a) No Deal; (b) Bad Deal; or (c) Remain if a majority have changed their minds.
Democracy is an ongoing process, not a single event and next March will be almost 3 years after the event - there is so much more information available regarding Brexit. It would be foolish not to take advantage of that info. Did anyone vote to be poorer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



During the campaign there was doublespeak, lies and dodgy stats emanating aplenty from Cameron,Osbourne and Co - in fact the presentation of information from both sides was appalling.

Politicians break promises, they lie, they do it all the time, it's nothing new - and if we were to rerun elections every time something dubious happens we'd wear out our shoes walking to the polling station every fortnight.

Having yet another referendum would make things much worse, our divided country would become a powder keg - anyway, it's not going to happen.

Probably a couple of points from your post - this isn’t an election we’re talking about here, its much, much more important than that and it’s a decision this country has to make which would have wide-ranging effects for our nation for more than a generation.
And as you so rightly point out, politicians from both sides lied and made ridiculous claims, which is further ammunition to say that final Brexit decision should not be left with them to do as they please, but given to the people


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3464
Team Supported: Darlington
The thing is Pete it was given to the people!

And that's the problem because "the people" made "the wrong" choice according to the EU (who have form in re running elections that didn't go to plan) and according to a wide selection of our politicians who can't see any further than their own cosseted lives, and who had ample opportunity to put things on a more even keel years ago regarding how people in this country have felt aggrieved by the way that the EU has changed in recent times.

I respect that you most probably have a different view over the referendum result than me, but the title of this thread isn't really about that, it's title is "Democracy under threat" and if another referendum is put into gear I think it will be - bad feeling in an already divided country will intensify and possibly worse.

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
The thing is Pete it was given to the people!

And that's the problem because "the people" made "the wrong" choice according to the EU (who have form in re running elections that didn't go to plan) and according to a wide selection of our politicians who can't see any further than their own cosseted lives, and who had ample opportunity to put things on a more even keel years ago regarding how people in this country have felt aggrieved by the way that the EU has changed in recent times.

I respect that you most probably have a different view over the referendum result than me, but the title of this thread isn't really about that, it's title is "Democracy under threat" and if another referendum is put into gear I think it will be - bad feeling in an already divided country will intensify and possibly worse.

Democracy is already under threat - it certainly wasn’t “given” to all of the people during the (advisory-only) referendum. Around 3 million British ex-pats were denied a vote, even though Brexit directly affects them. Not really democracy in any sense of the word.
The Leave campaign illegally overspent on the referendum campaign by £500,000 and were fined by the Electoral Commission and several people have been referred to the police for criminal activities.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 1.html?amp
Eventually, the Leave campaign had to be compelled to co-operate with the Electoral Commission to comply with requests for interviews and financial data after many prior refusals. Gove and Johnson headed the organisation responsible. Spending limits are there to make democracy fair and above board.
Data firms AIQ and Cambridge Analytica were beneficiaries of the overspend, micro-targeting voters through social media.
It may not be interesting to most but it makes a difference to how democracy is being manipulated and changed in favour of certain groups. When a people’s vote takes place - and I think it will - it would be under the most intense scrutiny ever. And hopefully concentrating on issues that affect our everyday lives - not just pathetic soundbites from the likes of Cameron and Johnson, Farage and Osborne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 8:54 pm
Posts: 60
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlo_Pete wrote:
I voted to remain in the EU and we lost the public vote. I think democracy is under serious threat if the result of that vote was ignored and another vote held. If that did happen, I would now vote to leave to make sure that that first democratic vote was upheld.




why would a communist vote for an exit from the communist European elite.. typical darlo pete


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Posts: 6286
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlo_Pete wrote:
I voted to remain in the EU and we lost the public vote. I think democracy is under serious threat if the result of that vote was ignored and another vote held. If that did happen, I would now vote to leave to make sure that that first democratic vote was upheld.


Agreed, and I'd like to add that we can never be truly democratic whilst remaining in the EU.

QuakerPete wrote:
Brexit in any of its forms, but particularly No Deal or WTO terms, will be highly damaging to this country for generations. This wasn’t what was promised by Farage, Johnson, Fox, Davis, et al.


Yeah but the Remainers never shut up about it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Darlo_Pete wrote:
I voted to remain in the EU and we lost the public vote. I think democracy is under serious threat if the result of that vote was ignored and another vote held. If that did happen, I would now vote to leave to make sure that that first democratic vote was upheld.


Agreed, and I'd like to add that we can never be truly democratic whilst remaining in the EU.

QuakerPete wrote:
Brexit in any of its forms, but particularly No Deal or WTO terms, will be highly damaging to this country for generations. This wasn’t what was promised by Farage, Johnson, Fox, Davis, et al.


Yeah but the Remainers never shut up about it.

I would rather we didn’t leave the future of this country to a bunch of chancers like these. Leave under any circumstances?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 11005
Team Supported: Darlington
They're now talking about Dublin having a different time zone from Belfast, complete bonkers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlo_Pete wrote:
They're now talking about Dublin having a different time zone from Belfast, complete bonkers.

Brexit is completely bonkers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 11005
Team Supported: Darlington
QuakerPete wrote:
Darlo_Pete wrote:
They're now talking about Dublin having a different time zone from Belfast, complete bonkers.

Brexit is completely bonkers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So your saying that despite a democratic vote, which didn't go our way, it's completely right to null and void that referendum?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlo_Pete wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Darlo_Pete wrote:
They're now talking about Dublin having a different time zone from Belfast, complete bonkers.

Brexit is completely bonkers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So your saying that despite a democratic vote, which didn't go our way, it's completely right to null and void that referendum?

Depends on your definition of democratic. If by that you mean 3 million British ex-pats denied a vote in the referendum - all directly affected by the result. Or the £500,000 illegal overspend by the Leave campaign.
Doesn’t sound very democratic to me - and that’s without delving deep into the various involved data firms, some of which are foreign, using illegally obtained personal data to target voters; or where the millions came from “donated” to Leave by Arron Banks.
And, of course, we must be the only country in the history of mankind which has voted to make ourselves poorer - as advised by just about every economic report since the vote, with WTO rules and No Deal being the worst of these methods.
Why can’t the public have their say on any final deal including an option to Remain if they feel what’s being offered is nothing like what was originally promised?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Posts: 705
Team Supported: Darlington
The original post is the stupidest and laziest argumentation against a vote on the terms of the deal.

You name one democracy where democracy has suffered.... because of more democracy. I can think of plenty of situations where democracy has suffered because of an effective right wing coup, which has then declared a matter is decided forever more.

The whole point of a democracy is that you can change your mind. I've long hoped sanity will prevail, and a sensible compromise will occur (i.e. staying in the single market & customs union, but leaving the EU as a political entity) but that would require responsible leadership, which i don't think the morons in charge are capable of. The most incompetent government of a lifetime. Say what you will about Cameron and Osbourne, and i had plenty to say at the time, i never felt they were grossly incompetent. May et al are.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4089
Team Supported: Darlington
H1987 wrote:
The original post is the stupidest and laziest argumentation against a vote on the terms of the deal.

You name one democracy where democracy has suffered.... because of more democracy. I can think of plenty of situations where democracy has suffered because of an effective right wing coup, which has then declared a matter is decided forever more.

The whole point of a democracy is that you can change your mind. I've long hoped sanity will prevail, and a sensible compromise will occur (i.e. staying in the single market & customs union, but leaving the EU as a political entity) but that would require responsible leadership, which i don't think the morons in charge are capable of. The most incompetent government of a lifetime. Say what you will about Cameron and Osbourne, and i had plenty to say at the time, i never felt they were grossly incompetent. May et al are.


Trouble is, remaining in the single market and customs union means you have to accept EU rules on just about everything, which includes political aspects such as freedom of movement, accepting ECJ oversight on dispute resolution, impacting ability to sign trade deals and so on, and so on. And you'd be accepting rules but having no influence other them. To me, you either remain in the European Union, or are completely independent of it. Not some halfway house that leaves the country trapped, accepting EU rules but unable to do anything about it. The Chequers Plan goes about as close as you can get without being in the single market or the customs union.

That is not the clean break from the EU people expect when they instructed the Government they wanted to leave (and like it or not, under the terms of the referendum, a majority did vote to leave). As someone who voted leave (and would do so again) that is unacceptable to me. Overbearing EU laws, combined with their lack of accountability, and the sheer arrogance of institutions like the Commission (who, for example, essentially blackmailed Greece into gutting their own public sector, but faced no democratic recourse from it), are the main reasons I voted leave. Remaining in the single market and customs union, essentially under EU control, would not resolve this.

As for the idea of a second referendum, the question I ask to you is - why aren't people who voted leave calling for it (there are a handful, but the overwhelming majority of those wanting a second referendum are those who voted to remain). Therefore it's just easy to tar those who want a second referendum as being sore losers - that's where it comes from.

And to use your own logic, what if in two years time, we're fed up of the lack of accountability and arrogance of the EU institutions, that we decide we want another referendum? We can't keep having referendum after referendum because it is politically and economically destabilising. Ultimately, we have to make a choice and that is what all politicians told us in 2016 we would be doing.

As for more democracy being threatened by more democracy, well I've never known a time where there's been so much animosity from each side of the debate towards their opponents. The political atmosphere really is quite toxic and people have lost the ability to be civil towards each other. I bet a pound to a penny, someone gives me a sarcastic, patronising, insulting response to this post, for instance.
Another referendum to my mind would only compound the toxicity we have right now.

It's plausible that we will have another referendum (if Parliament votes down any deal the Government presents, for instance). But right now I see it as unlikely.

As for Government incompetence, history won't judge the May Government well for her decision to trigger Article 50 without having a clear idea of her desired end state for Brexit Britain. It took 15 months for her to decide what she wanted - the Chequers Plan - which is utterly ludicrous. And she's compounded it time after time. Not coming up with a workable Irish border solution being another example.

Having said that, when you look at the Article 50 process, it's heavily stacked in the EU's favour. And then she's had to deal with ideologues like Rees-Mogg and the self-interested game players like Boris and Corbyn. So in that sense, I actually think May's resilience in the face of that will lend her some credit. It's telling that all the polling suggests while May hasn't done a great job, generally the public don't see anyone who'd do a better one.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
H1987 wrote:
The original post is the stupidest and laziest argumentation against a vote on the terms of the deal.

You name one democracy where democracy has suffered.... because of more democracy. I can think of plenty of situations where democracy has suffered because of an effective right wing coup, which has then declared a matter is decided forever more.

The whole point of a democracy is that you can change your mind. I've long hoped sanity will prevail, and a sensible compromise will occur (i.e. staying in the single market & customs union, but leaving the EU as a political entity) but that would require responsible leadership, which i don't think the morons in charge are capable of. The most incompetent government of a lifetime. Say what you will about Cameron and Osbourne, and i had plenty to say at the time, i never felt they were grossly incompetent. May et al are.


Trouble is, remaining in the single market and customs union means you have to accept EU rules on just about everything, which includes political aspects such as freedom of movement, accepting ECJ oversight on dispute resolution, impacting ability to sign trade deals and so on, and so on. And you'd be accepting rules but having no influence other them. To me, you either remain in the European Union, or are completely independent of it. Not some halfway house that leaves the country trapped, accepting EU rules but unable to do anything about it. The Chequers Plan goes about as close as you can get without being in the single market or the customs union.

That is not the clean break from the EU people expect when they instructed the Government they wanted to leave (and like it or not, under the terms of the referendum, a majority did vote to leave). As someone who voted leave (and would do so again) that is unacceptable to me. Overbearing EU laws, combined with their lack of accountability, and the sheer arrogance of institutions like the Commission (who, for example, essentially blackmailed Greece into gutting their own public sector, but faced no democratic recourse from it), are the main reasons I voted leave. Remaining in the single market and customs union, essentially under EU control, would not resolve this.

As for the idea of a second referendum, the question I ask to you is - why aren't people who voted leave calling for it (there are a handful, but the overwhelming majority of those wanting a second referendum are those who voted to remain). Therefore it's just easy to tar those who want a second referendum as being sore losers - that's where it comes from.

And to use your own logic, what if in two years time, we're fed up of the lack of accountability and arrogance of the EU institutions, that we decide we want another referendum? We can't keep having referendum after referendum because it is politically and economically destabilising. Ultimately, we have to make a choice and that is what all politicians told us in 2016 we would be doing.

As for more democracy being threatened by more democracy, well I've never known a time where there's been so much animosity from each side of the debate towards their opponents. The political atmosphere really is quite toxic and people have lost the ability to be civil towards each other. I bet a pound to a penny, someone gives me a sarcastic, patronising, insulting response to this post, for instance.
Another referendum to my mind would only compound the toxicity we have right now.

It's plausible that we will have another referendum (if Parliament votes down any deal the Government presents, for instance). But right now I see it as unlikely.

As for Government incompetence, history won't judge the May Government well for her decision to trigger Article 50 without having a clear idea of her desired end state for Brexit Britain. It took 15 months for her to decide what she wanted - the Chequers Plan - which is utterly ludicrous. And she's compounded it time after time. Not coming up with a workable Irish border solution being another example.

Having said that, when you look at the Article 50 process, it's heavily stacked in the EU's favour. And then she's had to deal with ideologues like Rees-Mogg and the self-interested game players like Boris and Corbyn. So in that sense, I actually think May's resilience in the face of that will lend her some credit. It's telling that all the polling suggests while May hasn't done a great job, generally the public don't see anyone who'd do a better one.

In view of the National Crime Agency’s investigation into alleged illegalities surrounding multi-million pound loans and donations by Arron Banks and aided by other senior Leave figures, what course of action do you think should happen before Brexit date?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4089
Team Supported: Darlington
Nice attempt at a loaded question Pete. But the only answer can be to let the NCA carry out their investigation.

Presumably you would add, the Brexit process should be halted while the investigation is ongoing?

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
Nice attempt at a loaded question Pete. But the only answer can be to let the NCA carry out their investigation.

Presumably you would add, the Brexit process should be halted while the investigation is ongoing?


Presumably you wouldn’t?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
Just a few thoughts on your previous post Darlogramps:

Darlogramps wrote:
Trouble is, remaining in the single market and customs union means you have to accept EU rules on just about everything, which includes political aspects such as freedom of movement, accepting ECJ oversight on dispute resolution, impacting ability to sign trade deals and so on, and so on. And you'd be accepting rules but having no influence other them. To me, you either remain in the European Union, or are completely independent of it. Not some halfway house that leaves the country trapped, accepting EU rules but unable to do anything about it. The Chequers Plan goes about as close as you can get without being in the single market or the customs union. .


Freedom of Movement is misleading in a sense, as the UK already has the powers to remove EU citizens from the UK after 3 months if they don’t have a job or means of financial support. Some EU countries do this, the UK never has under any government.
The UK isn’t ruled by the EU, the UK makes the majority of its own rules and laws and also plays a leading part in forming those EU rules which affect us and all countries.
On purely financial terms, if the UK leaves the Single Market and Customs Union, EVERY single trade agreement of one type or another we have with the rest of the world stops at 11pm on 29/3/2019 – there are over 750 of them! Many of these deals with poorer countries are already free trade agreements using EBA (Everything But Arms). A single WTO deal takes on average 8 years to complete. Every financial institution reports that the UK will be much worse off under any other deal, but especially under WTO rules (those rules get everywhere) or No Deal – with the North East being the worst hit in the UK under any deal. The best deal available to us is to Remain. We already have a special deal on opt-outs on Schengen, joining the Euro currency and financial rebate over our contributions which no-one else has.

Darlogramps wrote:
That is not the clean break from the EU people expect when they instructed the Government they wanted to leave (and like it or not, under the terms of the referendum, a majority did vote to leave). As someone who voted leave (and would do so again) that is unacceptable to me. Overbearing EU laws, combined with their lack of accountability, and the sheer arrogance of institutions like the Commission (who, for example, essentially blackmailed Greece into gutting their own public sector, but faced no democratic recourse from it), are the main reasons I voted leave. Remaining in the single market and customs union, essentially under EU control, would not resolve this. .


I suspect that very few people in this country truly understood the vast amount of things affected by Brexit or the complexity of the issues concerned. I also suspect that very few could discuss the Single Market and Customs Union with any great authority, plus the effects on the UK of leaving them.
For anyone following the Brexit debate over the past 30 months, and particularly with the recent decisions by the Electoral Commission to fine the Leave side the maximum amount available within their powers for “illegal” funding by over £500,000 – plus also referring a number of Leave people to the Metropolitan Police for these illegalities; and now just this week Arron Banks and Liz Bilney to the National Crime Agency regarding the source of millions of pounds of donations and loans. It wouldn’t seem “democratic” to proceed with Brexit anyway until the results of these investigations are completed. Who wants democracy bought and paid for by unknown groups with a very specific agenda (too long to go into here).
Can you give specific examples of these “overbearing laws” and how they affected us? The UK, between 1999 and 2016, voted successfully 95% of the time on EU-level laws, abstained 3% and lost 2%. The UK has been at the heart of decision-making within the EU, not as some kind of second-rate country having things imposed on them.
How, specifically, are the EU not accountable? As a comparison, currently I can’t vote for the Head of State (the monarch), the Prime Minister, any of the Cabinet, any members of the House of Lords or any of the Civil Service.

Darlogramps wrote:
As for the idea of a second referendum, the question I ask to you is - why aren't people who voted leave calling for it (there are a handful, but the overwhelming majority of those wanting a second referendum are those who voted to remain). Therefore it's just easy to tar those who want a second referendum as being sore losers - that's where it comes from. .

Sore losers makes no sense, they would have to have something to be sore about, there have to be specific reasons. When following the Brexit debate since before the vote, the Remain argument contends that our country will be much worse off politically and financially by leaving the EU – or to put a positive slant on it, we’re better off staying in the EU and using our influence and power to make changes for the better.
Why shouldn’t the people be entitled to vote on the deal (or no deal) eventually reached? The promises made at the time were of a deal better than we already had; “easiest deal in history”; “we hold all the cards”; “the EU will beg us for a deal”; “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market” (Daniel Hannan); “what’s wrong with a Norway or Switzerland deal?” (Farage), etc. None of these are talked about now but were promised. The people are entitled to see the end result and be allowed to give their verdict on it, to also include Remain.


Darlogramps wrote:
And to use your own logic, what if in two years time, we're fed up of the lack of accountability and arrogance of the EU institutions, that we decide we want another referendum? We can't keep having referendum after referendum because it is politically and economically destabilising. Ultimately, we have to make a choice and that is what all politicians told us in 2016 we would be doing. .

Democracy doesn’t stop, it’s a process not an event. We’ve had a further election in 2017 and those politicians bailed out immediately after the vote. The previous election was only in 2015 – which is less time between the referendum and now. “Countries which cannot change their minds cease to be democracies” – David Davis (ex-Brexit Secretary). Farage told the Mirror in 2016 before the vote: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.”


Darlogramps wrote:
As for more democracy being threatened by more democracy, well I've never known a time where there's been so much animosity from each side of the debate towards their opponents. The political atmosphere really is quite toxic and people have lost the ability to be civil towards each other. I bet a pound to a penny, someone gives me a sarcastic, patronising, insulting response to this post, for instance.
Another referendum to my mind would only compound the toxicity we have right now. .

Who knows what a further vote (on the deal) would bring, but denying that vote is suppressing democracy and solving nothing. And there are plenty of Leavers who say Leave would win again with a bigger margin. If that was the case, I think the most hardened Remainer would then have to accept it. Though it doesn’t prevent people working towards rejoining again at some time in the future if they so wish – that’s democracy. But the essence is if the government’s deal / no deal scenario is voted down in Parliament, then the only solution is a People’s Vote.

Darlogramps wrote:
As for Government incompetence, history won't judge the May Government well for her decision to trigger Article 50 without having a clear idea of her desired end state for Brexit Britain. It took 15 months for her to decide what she wanted - the Chequers Plan - which is utterly ludicrous. And she's compounded it time after time. Not coming up with a workable Irish border solution being another example. .

I agree, history won’t judge May and the Tories at all well and the strength of that judgment will depend, initially, on the next couple of years and HOW Brexit is enacted in that time. Then in the long-term of how well / badly the UK succeeds in the world in many different areas. Triggering Article 50 with no preparation using a binary (and advisory-only) vote on such complex issues as unpicking years and years of being part of the biggest trade and political partnership in the world is unforgiveable. David Davis claiming there were scores of Brexit Impact Assessments in “excruciating detail”, then lying to say there weren’t any only to admit later on there were assessments – but only after being forced to by Parliament. Doesn’t sound like taking back control, more like handing Henry VIII powers to the Executive. That’s not my kind of democracy.

Darlogramps wrote:
Having said that, when you look at the Article 50 process, it's heavily stacked in the EU's favour. And then she's had to deal with ideologues like Rees-Mogg and the self-interested game players like Boris and Corbyn. So in that sense, I actually think May's resilience in the face of that will lend her some credit. It's telling that all the polling suggests while May hasn't done a great job, generally the public don't see anyone who'd do a better one.

We are the ones resigning from the club, we’re not being thrown out. The club makes the rules and looks after all its constituent members – it’s our club until we leave. We are then classed as a third country (not third world country). The EU would love us to stay (not just for the contributions we give – which are a tiny part of our annual GDP). The UK is a rule-maker and influencer at the top end of the EU with France and Germany. We also enjoy the combined power and strength of the EU membership in the world. We’re giving that up for . . ?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3464
Team Supported: Darlington
Pete, there's two ways of looking at everything.

Re the Aaron Banks thing it was mentioned on TV on Thursday that some members of the electoral commission have openly come out and said they want a second referendum when they should be impartial.

Now add to this the fact that David Cameron’s government spent £9000,000 pounds of tax payers money on remain propaganda during the referendum campaign and this money conveniently didn’t classify for inclusion in the total amount for remain spending, hardly a level playing is it!!!!

Finally, I have a question for you. If David Cameron (I can't stand him BTW) had pre 2015 general election stated that IF his government were to be voted in he would pull the UK of the E.U. - and that happened, i.e. elected Conservative government = U.K. out of E.U, would that of been alright with you? Would all the people now wanting a second referendum be calling for a second election?

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Pete, there's two ways of looking at everything.

Re the Aaron Banks thing it was mentioned on TV on Thursday that some members of the electoral commission have openly come out and said they want a second referendum when they should be impartial.

I do try to look at both sides of an argument TOF, to understand what, how and why. because otherwise we would just be sounding chambers.
Would like to see the quotes / context of these members of the Commission. Any links? However, if true it may not be advisable but it isn’t illegal - and this is the crux of an election being bought. Look up about Cambridge Analytica (and other linked organisations - some from America) and their whistleblower Chris Wylie who recently said on a Tweet - Christopher Wylie [emoji2380] (@chrisinsilico)
11/07/2018, 09:01
Just to sum up. 1) Facebook broke the law. 2) Cambridge Analytica broke the law. 3) Vote Leave broke the law. 4) LeaveEU broke the law. 5) Brexit and Trump were both won through breaking the law. 6) Facebook let it all happen and covered it up.
Illegalities by the Leave side and several individuals are now being investigated by the Met. Police; the National Crime Agency is now also investigating Arron Banks on the basis that further crimes may have been committed.
Whatever side people are on, surely they want their democracy to be free, fair and transparent? I feel that some believe the end justifies the means and if that’s the case then we all lose our democracy

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Now add to this the fact that David Cameron’s government spent £9000,000 pounds of tax payers money on remain propaganda during the referendum campaign and this money conveniently didn’t classify for inclusion in the total amount for remain spending, hardly a level playing is it!!!!

I don’t know why the document was considered not part of the referendum expenses. The Electoral Commission considered a report from (I think) ex-minister Priti Patel and found nothing untoward or illegal. I’m happy for anyone to point to legal argument for this, probably somewhere on the Electoral Commission’s website.

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Finally, I have a question for you. If David Cameron (I can't stand him BTW) had pre 2015 general election stated that IF his government were to be voted in he would pull the UK of the E.U. - and that happened, i.e. elected Conservative government = U.K. out of E.U, would that of been alright with you? Would all the people now wanting a second referendum be calling for a second election?

Isn’t the example you’ve put forward democracy in action? Just because a decision has been reached by a government doesn’t tie anyone to it - doesn’t mean I (and others) have to like it, accept it or support it, especially if we think it’s fundamentally bad for me, my family and the country. Anybody would have a democratic right to oppose it within the law. It happens all the time in Parliament - HM Opposition try to stop / change things the government of the day propose. Outside of Parliament there can be petitions, demonstrations, meetings, etc, all perfectly acceptable in a thriving democracy.
Something as earth-shattering in comparison as leaving the EU is bound to create a divisive situation.
I’m not certain a People’s Vote would even bring a about a different result, but at least they would have a wealth of real information to use to make a judgment - unlike June 2016


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4089
Team Supported: Darlington
QuakerPete, you've made a hell of a lot of detailed points and it would be impossible to follow my post if I quoted and replied to every single one, so I'll write all my counter points below.

On the issue of the Electoral Commission, it is inherently pro-remain. Four out of 10 of its commissioners, including its chair, have made some form of public pro-remain comment since the referendum (with three coming while they were in post with the EC). Sir John Holmes, the chair, in a public speech said he regretted the referendum result, while Sir David Howarth has publicly criticised pro-Brexit figures and arguments (Howarth is no longer an EC Commissioner).

While I'm sure everyone would agree they are entitled to their view, if you work for a supposedly impartial EC, you're obliged not to do or say anything in public that undermines the integrity of the body. These commission members haven't done so, which suggests to me they cannot be impartial on Brexit, and should no longer be in position. Therefore, any judgements they make are tarnished by their anti-Brexit stance.

On the issue of campaign spending laws, you claim several pro-leave groups flouted said laws and therefore this makes the referendum illegitimate. Curiously, you've ignored that pro-Remain groups, including the Lib Dems, have been fined for overspending too (although interestingly the punishments issued are much less severe from the EC - leaving the EC open to accusations of leniency on the part of pro-remain groups). All sides cheated in the referendum, so your decision to focus only on the Leave side demonstrates you have no interest in fairness.

To me, the election spending laws are completely archaic and not fit for purpose. They do not for instance track social media spending, which is where much campaigning is done these days. And what of the £9m pro-EU propaganda drop, carried out by Government (which was actively campaigning to remain)? It doesn't appear in EC spending limits because it happened a couple of days before the regulated period kicked in.

But for context, Vote Leave, the officially designated body of Leave, had a spending limit of £7m. If the Government can issue a £9m leaflet drop, which is £2m more than Vote Leave was allowed to spend, it shows the disparity in resources between the two sides. It's also why your complaint about overspending potentially affecting the result cannot possibly ring true. Were people unduly influenced by a £500,000 overspend, when the Government in just one leaflet drop spent 18 times that amount? And that ignores the other pro-EU material and campaigning issued by the Government before the regulated period. The whole system is archaic.

You've asked how the EU is unaccountable. You're an intelligent man QuakerPete who is fully versed with pro and anti-EU arguments. You know fine well the arguments about a lack of accountability within the EU, so I'm not going to repeat them. There are obvious problems with your domestic comparisons as well, because neither the Monarch, the UK civil service or the House of Lords proposes legislation or policies that directly affect UK citizens (well the House of Lords does to an extent, but not as much as the Commons. And I think the Lords should be elected anyway). The EU Commission does propose legislation which affects hundreds of millions of lives, but doesn't face any form of direct democracy.

You've said that denying another referendum is "suppressing democracy". No it is not - if anything, holding another referendum would be the undemocratic move, because there's no evidence a majority of people want it. There's a great article from Matt Singh, who's an exceptional polling analyst, where he in essence says there's not been any shift in attitudes towards Brexit: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -than-ever

And this from John Curtice again shows a lack of support for any additional referendum: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/have-attitu ... ing-point/

No evidence people want another referendum. No evidence people have changed their mind on Brexit. And as I've said before, why is it the only people who want another referendum are the people who lost in June 2016?

On your points about overbearing laws, I don't need to point out specific laws, because the general principle is that EU law takes precedence over domestic law. That is a fact. So when you say "The UK isn’t ruled by the EU" - it's nonsense because in a lot of instances it is. And this is why so many people voted Leave - because they want Britain to have complete control over its laws.

Let's take the issue of immigration, which was a key part of the referendum. When it comes to migration from the EU, sovereign nations cannot possibly have any control because of the Freedom of Movement principle. You say the UK can remove EU migrants who are without a job or means of supporting themselves which comes from this directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Le ... 123:en:PDF

There are problems with this. A) The Government would have to prove the citizen doesn't have a job, or a prospect of getting a job. B) The process is more complicated if a citizen has moved with family members (they can't just be separated). C) The citizen, rightly, can appeal if they believe the expulsion isn't justified. So all of a sudden, this process becomes messy, lengthy and expensive.

However it also entirely misses the point. Rather than having unchecked EU migration and correcting it later, it much better to have total control of your borders. It largely prevents the problems of the current system. That's not to say there should be no immigration. Done properly, immigration enriches and benefits Britain. But unchecked immigration is not a sensible way of doing things.

Moreover the principle affects different countries in different ways. Britain is, geographically, a small island nation. The policy will affect Britain differently to a large nation on the continent like Germany. Same for a smaller central European country like Hungary and a large Mediterranean nation like Spain. You can't have one size fits all policies for 28 very different countries and economies.

Finally, while most of your points are well-thought through and reasonable, this one is not:
Quote:
"Democracy doesn’t stop, it’s a process not an event. We’ve had a further election in 2017 and those politicians bailed out immediately after the vote. The previous election was only in 2015 – which is less time between the referendum and now.“Countries which cannot change their minds cease to be democracies” – David Davis (ex-Brexit Secretary).


You've compared the referendum to a General Election. But the difference is we as a country are obliged to have a General Election regularly. Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, this is every five years, but can be earlier under the terms of the act.
You can't seriously be suggesting we hold a referendum every few years on EU membership? If you want another one, then you must accept any demands from Leavers to hold one after that, if the result doesn't go their way. Holding a referendum every couple of years is madness. We were told the Government would implement the result (so it was binding politically - claiming it was advisory is straw-clutching), and that the referendum would be once in a generation. The Government can't then go back on that, without suppressing democracy itself

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Last edited by Darlogramps on Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3464
Team Supported: Darlington
So Pete, after you've digested this lengthy piece from Darlogramps here's some more for you.

I voted to leave - and what annoys me the most about this second referendum thing is the common patronising mantra from so called ‘remoaners’ that says the people who voted to leave are thick/didn’t know what they were voting for/didn’t understand the consequences/are old/are bitter/all of the previous/or worse still are northerners/blah blah bloody blah...

I feel that none of these terms apply to me.

I spent a lot of time listening to all the arguments put out by both sides, and reading up on the situation. At the time I wanted the remain campaign to bring out some watertight reasons to stay in because I knew it would be a lot easier if it turned out that way - but to me this didn’t happen, the leave campaign was stronger than most people expected, and ‘leave’ is what happened.

The "Peoples vote" happened - it's been done.

In my opinion the only way a second vote could ever take place is if the E.U leaders had a big change of policy on some of the key ways in which the E.U.works. I thought this might happen for a short while but obviously it won't now. They are inflexible, blinded by their dream.

There is a good book by Yanis Varoufakis called "And The Weak Suffer What They Must" in which he explains that the whole idea of the modern EU is (or was) that it was designed in a manner in which nobody could ever leave, i.e. tie all countries up in a financial straight jacket first, then - well implement whatever.....

Remember we never had a vote on the changes that John Major put through, and also remember that gradually between 1975 and 2016 the big truck named "common market" turned into an unstoppable juggernaut named "EU Superstate"

I mention this to make the point that at least there was a long discussion about Brexit, and a vote on Brexit. Having another one won’t solve anything, it will just lead to yet more bad feeling.

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 4089
Team Supported: Darlington
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
I voted to leave - and what annoys me the most about this second referendum thing is the common patronising mantra from so called ‘remoaners’ that says the people who voted to leave are thick/didn’t know what they were voting for/didn’t understand the consequences/are old/are bitter/all of the previous/or worse still are northerners/blah blah bloody blah...


There is an awful lot of this from Remainers. Some, not all, seem to think every Leave voter was thick, and that they could be duped by a few Facebook adverts from Arran Banks, or so on.

It's quite simply a case that the majority of people knew the current EU system wasn't working for them, and there was little prospect of it doing so. They voted on those principles, and there's a tonne of evidence out there which suggests that.

Until the Remain side accept this, and come up with more persuasive arguments, rather than shouting "You're a racist", or "You were duped by racists" at anyone who voted Leave, they'll never convince people about remaining in the EU. You have to accept the concerns and then work to address them. Not call them racist or stupid.

It's largely forgotten that David Cameron attempted to renegotiate our relationship with the EU in early 2016. He and his aides accept themselves they didn't get very far, and what the EU allowed them to agree to with was not nearly enough to address people's concerns. The EU have no desire to change, otherwise they'd have done so by now following the Brexit vote. Instead, they just sneered some more. It's this sheer arrogance of people like Verhofstadt, Tusk and Juncker that convinces me the EU has no desire to change.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 1028
Team Supported: Darlington
Reply to you first TOF

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
So Pete, after you've digested this lengthy piece from Darlogramps here's some more for you.
I voted to leave - and what annoys me the most about this second referendum thing is the common patronising mantra from so called ‘remoaners’ that says the people who voted to leave are thick/didn’t know what they were voting for/didn’t understand the consequences/are old/are bitter/all of the previous/or worse still are northerners/blah blah bloody blah...
I feel that none of these terms apply to me.

You missed “racist” from your list.
But, you’re right TOF – we “Remoaning Snowflake Metropolitan Elites, we who are undemocratic (in wanting a democratic vote on any deal that occurs because we have no idea what we are getting by handing over power to a few cliques in the Tory government), we the Enemy of the People, we who Hate Our Country, we who are Traitors and should be hung from the nearest lamppost” – we don’t really understand the terminology used by one side against another!
Which is why it’s best not to use such terminology when discussing Brexit across the divide, it’s self-defeating.
However, most of those things you mentioned are factually correct for both sides, but possibly 2-3 of them more so for Leave.

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
I spent a lot of time listening to all the arguments put out by both sides, and reading up on the situation. At the time I wanted the remain campaign to bring out some watertight reasons to stay in because I knew it would be a lot easier if it turned out that way - but to me this didn’t happen, the leave campaign was stronger than most people expected, and ‘leave’ is what happened.

I thought the Remain campaign was led by uninspiring nobodies who hadn’t a clue how to project the benefits of the EU (I then couldn’t remember who they were, used Google and found out I was right – David Cameron, and where is he now?). They emphasized the downsides of leaving without the positives of staying.
Whereas the Leave campaign was based on slogans and little fact – “Take Back Control”, “Project Fear”, “Unaccountable”, “Easiest Deal in History”, “We Hold All The Cards”, “Deal Should Only Take a Few Weeks” and so it went on. How do those stand up now? It’s one thing saying them, but another delivering the goods

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
The "Peoples vote" happened - it's been done.

It still doesn’t make it go away until it’s all done and dusted, no matter how much you wish it. Especially after C4’s latest programme using a Survation poll (20,000 surveyed) showing 54% Remain and 46% Leave. This is on top of poll of polls showing Remain have a continuous lead – it just needs the right set of circumstances for there to be a People’s Vote

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
In my opinion the only way a second vote could ever take place is if the E.U leaders had a big change of policy on some of the key ways in which the E.U. works. I thought this might happen for a short while but obviously it won't now. They are inflexible, blinded by their dream.

Interested to know which specific ways you think the EU should change how they work in order for the UK to remain. Though judging from your "EU Superstate" remark further down I'm guessing it would be significant.

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
There is a good book by Yanis Varoufakis called "And The Weak Suffer What They Must" in which he explains that the whole idea of the modern EU is (or was) that it was designed in a manner in which nobody could ever leave, i.e. tie all countries up in a financial straight jacket first, then - well implement whatever.....

I’ve followed this guy on Twitter for some time up until recently, it’s good to get an outsider’s perspective.
How does the financial straightjacket idea work? What I see are countries enjoying the frictionless trade across the EU and the 750-plus trade agreements around the rest of the world, a lot of which are free trade (EBA – Anything But Arms) to the poorer countries.
If these countries have put themselves into this situation, they have done so willingly and with open arms. And there are good reasons to do so quite apart from the frictionless and seamless trade it brings with the rest of the EU members. Have a look at Ciaran the van driver who travels all over Europe delivering –
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... t-12620627


theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Remember we never had a vote on the changes that John Major put through, and also remember that gradually between 1975 and 2016 the big truck named "common market" turned into an unstoppable juggernaut named "EU Superstate"
I mention this to make the point that at least there was a long discussion about Brexit, and a vote on Brexit. Having another one won’t solve anything, it will just lead to yet more bad feeling.

People “feeling bad” is not a reason to stop a vote or to remain. On the contrary, if we were to stay in the EU it would solve a huge amount of self-made problems and prevent new ones appearing.
The “long” discussion we had in 2016 was based on little real information in terms of the intricacies of the EU and just how intertwined we are with 27 other European countries – and that’s not a bad thing in my point of view. We’ve had a much detailed and incisive discussion since the vote, and since Article 50 was so precipitously launched way too early. We know much more than we ever did and, from my point of view and from all the sources I’ve looked at (both sides), I believe leaving will be catastrophic for the UK and its people – as both David Gauke (Tory, minister) and Barry Gardiner (Labour, shadow minister) said on C4 programme yesterday if there is no deal. If there is a deal, all they could promise was “the best deal” which is the same as “how long is a piece of string?”
And in 2018, are we seriously preparing for rationing of our foodstuffs and medicines? Who would have thought that a few years ago in the 6th largest economy in the world – the greatest vote of self-harm, ever.

But all of this pales into insignificance due to the number of investigations underway into referendum overspends, money sources, etc. These investigations are being carried out by the Metropolitan Police, National Crime Agency, Financial Conduct Authority and the Serious Fraud Office. How any true democrat, Leave or Remain, can consider Brexit proceeding without these being concluded first baffles me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group