Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have told the EU what we want, why haven't they just accepted it like all the Brexiters said they would? We're in charge, they have to accept what ever we say, right? " Sorry to say to you there in charge always have been and always will be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have told the EU what we want, why haven't they just accepted it like all the Brexiters said they would? We're in charge, they have to accept what ever we say, right? Sorry to say to you there in charge always have been and always will be " Think your sarcasm radar is on the blink  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have told the EU what we want, why haven't they just accepted it like all the Brexiters said they would? We're in charge, they have to accept what ever we say, right? " this will be repeated many times over and the standard response will be either 'we are leaving, get over it' or well they clearly hate us and want to punish us so we were right to leave.. for some the penny will never drop.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have told the EU what we want, why haven't they just accepted it like all the Brexiters said they would? We're in charge, they have to accept what ever we say, right? " So negative they where right to refuse because our offer was crap but we negotiate or would you just give up,would not like you to negotiate for me that is for certain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick" Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was." Ffs. Nit pick or what? How does that differ? Shouldn't they have gone through it line by line with the negotiators first and then made a statement as to whether it was good enough or not. If a public statement on it was needed at all. Dick | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was." Very bitter man,aswell as a loser,the result didn't go your way | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was a shit offer.Start with a olive branch not a club.Pathetic from may.Its a poor start Shes a twat." Merkel said it was a good start | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was a shit offer.Start with a olive branch not a club.Pathetic from may.Its a poor start Shes a twat. Merkel said it was a good start" Well she had to say something as silence would have been speculated on, so she said the minimum  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was. Ffs. Nit pick or what? How does that differ? Shouldn't they have gone through it line by line with the negotiators first and then made a statement as to whether it was good enough or not. If a public statement on it was needed at all. Dick" Maybe it had something to do with the fact that May announced it at an EU summit with heads of government, rather than at the negotiation table with Bernier who is negotiating on behalf of the EU. She has demonstrated once again that she has a poor understanding of how the EU works, and also undermined Davis with this announcement, outside of formal negotiations by someone other than the UKs chief negotiator! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?" I wouldn't start by using citzens as pawns in a game.She lacks humanity.It shows a lack of respect to our citzens abroad and theres here.Cheeky offers are ok when buying a used car not when dealing with millions of lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was. Ffs. Nit pick or what? How does that differ? Shouldn't they have gone through it line by line with the negotiators first and then made a statement as to whether it was good enough or not. If a public statement on it was needed at all. Dick Maybe it had something to do with the fact that May announced it at an EU summit with heads of government, rather than at the negotiation table with Bernier who is negotiating on behalf of the EU. She has demonstrated once again that she has a poor understanding of how the EU works, and also undermined Davis with this announcement, outside of formal negotiations by someone other than the UKs chief negotiator! " We all know just how the EU works, very slowley so as to frustrate anyone who has to deal with them. countless business lunches all paaid for by someone else | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was." If you are expecting comment from some people that requires a more complex analysis than you would get from the average five year old, you are really wasting your time. The EU are the baddies, don't forget. We are the goodies! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was. Ffs. Nit pick or what? How does that differ? Shouldn't they have gone through it line by line with the negotiators first and then made a statement as to whether it was good enough or not. If a public statement on it was needed at all. Dick" Going through it line by line with the negotiating team doesnt mean reading it for the first time. Going through it line by line means that they are going to have a very detailed discussion about it. May publicised the deal so a public statement was obviously needed then. If your hatred for the EU hadnt made you so blind you'd be able to see obvious things like replies being necessary and acknowledging the blatantly obvious things like people having read the document before commenting on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was. Ffs. Nit pick or what? How does that differ? Shouldn't they have gone through it line by line with the negotiators first and then made a statement as to whether it was good enough or not. If a public statement on it was needed at all. Dick Going through it line by line with the negotiating team doesnt mean reading it for the first time. Going through it line by line means that they are going to have a very detailed discussion about it. May publicised the deal so a public statement was obviously needed then. If your hatred for the EU hadnt made you so blind you'd be able to see obvious things like replies being necessary and acknowledging the blatantly obvious things like people having read the document before commenting on it." Public statement - we will go through it line by line and discuss it. Not - the UK offer is shit and may affect other negotiations. If it wasn't for your blind love of the EU (mummy) because Ireland always has to have someone looking after it, then you would realise that the people running the EU are a bunch of dicks and failed politicians. Hollande will be up for one of the top jobs next  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was. Ffs. Nit pick or what? How does that differ? Shouldn't they have gone through it line by line with the negotiators first and then made a statement as to whether it was good enough or not. If a public statement on it was needed at all. Dick Going through it line by line with the negotiating team doesnt mean reading it for the first time. Going through it line by line means that they are going to have a very detailed discussion about it. May publicised the deal so a public statement was obviously needed then. If your hatred for the EU hadnt made you so blind you'd be able to see obvious things like replies being necessary and acknowledging the blatantly obvious things like people having read the document before commenting on it. Public statement - we will go through it line by line and discuss it. Not - the UK offer is shit and may affect other negotiations. If it wasn't for your blind love of the EU (mummy) because Ireland always has to have someone looking after it, then you would realise that the people running the EU are a bunch of dicks and failed politicians. Hollande will be up for one of the top jobs next "Just talking political gravitas and irrespective of nationalities. Do you not think that Tusk, Juncker & Co deliver a more credible political stance than BoJo, Davis &Co?? It might be hard if you are only capable of thinking that your gang is better than their gang - but please try. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If May had guaranteed EU citizens right months ago, maybe it wouldn't have gone do badly" May did try to do a deal on this months ago Last Nov/Dec before article 50 was triggered. It's clear the EU don't give a shit about their citizens, they keep dragging this issue out and they have more to lose on this than the UK. They have 3 million citizens in the UK and the UK only has 1 million citizens in the EU by comparison. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was. Ffs. Nit pick or what? How does that differ? Shouldn't they have gone through it line by line with the negotiators first and then made a statement as to whether it was good enough or not. If a public statement on it was needed at all. Dick Maybe it had something to do with the fact that May announced it at an EU summit with heads of government, rather than at the negotiation table with Bernier who is negotiating on behalf of the EU. She has demonstrated once again that she has a poor understanding of how the EU works, and also undermined Davis with this announcement, outside of formal negotiations by someone other than the UKs chief negotiator! " That's nonsense. The UK has always said from the start the UK negotiations will be done by Brexit secretary David Davis AND The Prime Minister. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take? I wouldn't start by using citzens as pawns in a game.She lacks humanity.It shows a lack of respect to our citzens abroad and theres here.Cheeky offers are ok when buying a used car not when dealing with millions of lives." It's the EU who are dragging this out and prolonging the uncertainty for their citizens. They could have accepted a fully reciprocal deal on this month's ago before article 50 was triggered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take? I wouldn't start by using citzens as pawns in a game.She lacks humanity.It shows a lack of respect to our citzens abroad and theres here.Cheeky offers are ok when buying a used car not when dealing with millions of lives. It's the EU who are dragging this out and prolonging the uncertainty for their citizens. They could have accepted a fully reciprocal deal on this month's ago before article 50 was triggered. " That would have been illegal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If May had guaranteed EU citizens right months ago, maybe it wouldn't have gone do badly May did try to do a deal on this months ago Last Nov/Dec before article 50 was triggered. It's clear the EU don't give a shit about their citizens, they keep dragging this issue out and they have more to lose on this than the UK. They have 3 million citizens in the UK and the UK only has 1 million citizens in the EU by comparison. " 1 million UK citizens live only in Spain , the over next one million in other European Union countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?" We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pathetic. Tusk made a public statement about the UK proposals saying they are not satisfactory or whatever, then said we will go away and read the details. Shouldn't he have done that before opening his mouth. Dick Tusk said that the proposal wasnt good enough but that the negotiating team would go line by line with the UK negotiators rather than him commenting on specifics incase that undermined the negotiating team. Funny how different and wrong your version of that statement was. Ffs. Nit pick or what? How does that differ? Shouldn't they have gone through it line by line with the negotiators first and then made a statement as to whether it was good enough or not. If a public statement on it was needed at all. Dick Going through it line by line with the negotiating team doesnt mean reading it for the first time. Going through it line by line means that they are going to have a very detailed discussion about it. May publicised the deal so a public statement was obviously needed then. If your hatred for the EU hadnt made you so blind you'd be able to see obvious things like replies being necessary and acknowledging the blatantly obvious things like people having read the document before commenting on it. Public statement - we will go through it line by line and discuss it. Not - the UK offer is shit and may affect other negotiations. If it wasn't for your blind love of the EU (mummy) because Ireland always has to have someone looking after it, then you would realise that the people running the EU are a bunch of dicks and failed politicians. Hollande will be up for one of the top jobs next "Not one of your best deflections. You started by claiming that Tusk hadnt read the proposal. He had. You were completely wrong because youre so focused on finding faults with the EU whether they exist or not. The EU has been professional, organised, unified and efficient in regards to Brexit. They were ready for negotiations long before the UK. They published papers publicly for everyone to read before negotiations started. And theyve got the first major victory under their belts with the sequencing on their terms. The Tories on the other hand have been in disarry with a number of Torys having formed a working group of MPs from all parties to undermine and change Mays positions. Her own chancellor publicly disagreeing with her. No positions agreed or published in advance of negotiations (the citizen rights paper will only be published monday). Her own party have hung her out to dry by exposing May as the only one to block citizen rights after the referendum. The government still hasnt been formed and the deal with the DUPs is facing a legal challenge. The Torys have weakened their position and have lost their majority. More British people now believe Brexit was the wrong choice http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/majority-british-voters-brexit-wrong-decision-yougov-poll-finds-a7704566.html While the support for the EU across Europe has increased. And yet you think the EU is the failing one. See heres the thing that constantly escapes you. You and the rest of the Brexiters keep posting made up lies to try and justify your position and then keep getting proved wrong (like your ludicrous idiotic idea that Tusk hadnt read the proposal) whereas I can just post the facts as they are and that supports my argument quite well. Sure you just ignore them because they dont suit you but nevertheless my points all stand and yours crumble under even a cursory examination. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take? I wouldn't start by using citzens as pawns in a game.She lacks humanity.It shows a lack of respect to our citzens abroad and theres here.Cheeky offers are ok when buying a used car not when dealing with millions of lives. It's the EU who are dragging this out and prolonging the uncertainty for their citizens. They could have accepted a fully reciprocal deal on this month's ago before article 50 was triggered. That would have been illegal." He knows best | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If May had guaranteed EU citizens right months ago, maybe it wouldn't have gone do badly May did try to do a deal on this months ago Last Nov/Dec before article 50 was triggered. It's clear the EU don't give a shit about their citizens, they keep dragging this issue out and they have more to lose on this than the UK. They have 3 million citizens in the UK and the UK only has 1 million citizens in the EU by comparison. " Its clear its May who doesnt care about the people. Cameron wanted to give legal assurances to the citizens in Britain in the days after the Brexit result. All of the cabinet agreed except Theresa May. She blocked it. She tried to use the peoples welfare to divide the EU members before the negotiations started. But she's and inept strategist and her awkward attempts were seen for exactly what they were. Not to mention the fact that what May was offering and is publicly offering now is not good enough, so why would the EU short change people by agreeing to that when the EU can get a better deal for people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu." But we did, and in doing so, we all became Leavers. So come on, how do we push forward on Citizen's Rights? I would suggest that the main problem is one of jurisdiction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. But we did, and in doing so, we all became Leavers. So come on, how do we push forward on Citizen's Rights? I would suggest that the main problem is one of jurisdiction. " Well look at it realistically. You now have 21 months to sort out citizen rights, divorce bill, Northern Ireland before then moving on to trade and future relations. Should the UK waste valuable time digging their heels in over citizen rights and stirring up bad feeling in the negotiations as they try to increase uncertainty and the threat of deportation in the lives of ordinary people. Or should they just agree to the EUs terms and give everyone who is in the UK legally the rights theyve always had and generate some goodwill and move on to other topics with their very limited time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. But we did, and in doing so, we all became Leavers. So come on, how do we push forward on Citizen's Rights? I would suggest that the main problem is one of jurisdiction. Well look at it realistically. You now have 21 months to sort out citizen rights, divorce bill, Northern Ireland before then moving on to trade and future relations. Should the UK waste valuable time digging their heels in over citizen rights and stirring up bad feeling in the negotiations as they try to increase uncertainty and the threat of deportation in the lives of ordinary people. Or should they just agree to the EUs terms and give everyone who is in the UK legally the rights theyve always had and generate some goodwill and move on to other topics with their very limited time?" So you are happy then that the UK made an offer for negotiation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. But we did, and in doing so, we all became Leavers. So come on, how do we push forward on Citizen's Rights? I would suggest that the main problem is one of jurisdiction. " We did leave, but we are still remainers and yes, making it clear in the jurisdiction of their rights would be a good start. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. But we did, and in doing so, we all became Leavers. So come on, how do we push forward on Citizen's Rights? I would suggest that the main problem is one of jurisdiction. Well look at it realistically. You now have 21 months to sort out citizen rights, divorce bill, Northern Ireland before then moving on to trade and future relations. Should the UK waste valuable time digging their heels in over citizen rights and stirring up bad feeling in the negotiations as they try to increase uncertainty and the threat of deportation in the lives of ordinary people. Or should they just agree to the EUs terms and give everyone who is in the UK legally the rights theyve always had and generate some goodwill and move on to other topics with their very limited time? So you are happy then that the UK made an offer for negotiation? " 
Not sure how you got that from what I wrote. The smart thing to do from Mays side would be to offer clear assurances on rights to the citizens instead of curtailing them. Get the public on side, get the negotiations moving fast and generate some goodwill from the EU all while safeguarding the NHS and UK businesses from losing hundreds of thousands of important employees, particularly doctors and nurses.
Instead she's offered a substandard deal,generated negative headlines, drawn out negotiations on this topic further which shortens the time available to get a trade deal done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. But we did, and in doing so, we all became Leavers. So come on, how do we push forward on Citizen's Rights? I would suggest that the main problem is one of jurisdiction. Well look at it realistically. You now have 21 months to sort out citizen rights, divorce bill, Northern Ireland before then moving on to trade and future relations. Should the UK waste valuable time digging their heels in over citizen rights and stirring up bad feeling in the negotiations as they try to increase uncertainty and the threat of deportation in the lives of ordinary people. Or should they just agree to the EUs terms and give everyone who is in the UK legally the rights theyve always had and generate some goodwill and move on to other topics with their very limited time? So you are happy then that the UK made an offer for negotiation?
Not sure how you got that from what I wrote. The smart thing to do from Mays side would be to offer clear assurances on rights to the citizens instead of curtailing them. Get the public on side, get the negotiations moving fast and generate some goodwill from the EU all while safeguarding the NHS and UK businesses from losing hundreds of thousands of important employees, particularly doctors and nurses.
Instead she's offered a substandard deal,generated negative headlines, drawn out negotiations on this topic further which shortens the time available to get a trade deal done."It's an offer for consideration and negotiation. Theresa May has to tread a fine line here...come inwards from her initial position, whilst be seen by the UK public, as not giving away too much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. But we did, and in doing so, we all became Leavers. So come on, how do we push forward on Citizen's Rights? I would suggest that the main problem is one of jurisdiction. Well look at it realistically. You now have 21 months to sort out citizen rights, divorce bill, Northern Ireland before then moving on to trade and future relations. Should the UK waste valuable time digging their heels in over citizen rights and stirring up bad feeling in the negotiations as they try to increase uncertainty and the threat of deportation in the lives of ordinary people. Or should they just agree to the EUs terms and give everyone who is in the UK legally the rights theyve always had and generate some goodwill and move on to other topics with their very limited time? So you are happy then that the UK made an offer for negotiation?
Not sure how you got that from what I wrote. The smart thing to do from Mays side would be to offer clear assurances on rights to the citizens instead of curtailing them. Get the public on side, get the negotiations moving fast and generate some goodwill from the EU all while safeguarding the NHS and UK businesses from losing hundreds of thousands of important employees, particularly doctors and nurses.
Instead she's offered a substandard deal,generated negative headlines, drawn out negotiations on this topic further which shortens the time available to get a trade deal done."I have to say some of the most lucid , explicit and irrefutable sense , it is genuinely beyond me how anyone cannot grasp this fact. The UK offer was poor and designed to procrastinate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If May had guaranteed EU citizens right months ago, maybe it wouldn't have gone do badly May did try to do a deal on this months ago Last Nov/Dec before article 50 was triggered. It's clear the EU don't give a shit about their citizens, they keep dragging this issue out and they have more to lose on this than the UK. They have 3 million citizens in the UK and the UK only has 1 million citizens in the EU by comparison. Its clear its May who doesnt care about the people. Cameron wanted to give legal assurances to the citizens in Britain in the days after the Brexit result. All of the cabinet agreed except Theresa May. She blocked it. She tried to use the peoples welfare to divide the EU members before the negotiations started. But she's and inept strategist and her awkward attempts were seen for exactly what they were. Not to mention the fact that what May was offering and is publicly offering now is not good enough, so why would the EU short change people by agreeing to that when the EU can get a better deal for people?" Cameron wasn't in a position to offer anything to anyone in the days after the Brexit result, he resigned as Prime Minister about 3 hours after the referendum result was announced on 24th June 2016. When he resigned as Prime minister he automatically became a back bench MP with no more say on anything than any other back bench MP. Now he has resigned as an MP he doesn't get a say on anything. May has offered the EU a very good reciprocal deal on EU citizens. The UK will not accept the European Court of Justice having jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit, EU citizens living here will come under the jurisdiction of British courts. The 3 million EU citizens here before Brexit will have full right to stay in return for the 1 million UK citizens in the EU having full right to stay there. A school child could do the maths, it's obvious the EU has more to lose on this than the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If May had guaranteed EU citizens right months ago, maybe it wouldn't have gone do badly May did try to do a deal on this months ago Last Nov/Dec before article 50 was triggered. It's clear the EU don't give a shit about their citizens, they keep dragging this issue out and they have more to lose on this than the UK. They have 3 million citizens in the UK and the UK only has 1 million citizens in the EU by comparison. Its clear its May who doesnt care about the people. Cameron wanted to give legal assurances to the citizens in Britain in the days after the Brexit result. All of the cabinet agreed except Theresa May. She blocked it. She tried to use the peoples welfare to divide the EU members before the negotiations started. But she's and inept strategist and her awkward attempts were seen for exactly what they were. Not to mention the fact that what May was offering and is publicly offering now is not good enough, so why would the EU short change people by agreeing to that when the EU can get a better deal for people? Cameron wasn't in a position to offer anything to anyone in the days after the Brexit result, he resigned as Prime Minister about 3 hours after the referendum result was announced on 24th June 2016. When he resigned as Prime minister he automatically became a back bench MP with no more say on anything than any other back bench MP. Now he has resigned as an MP he doesn't get a say on anything. May has offered the EU a very good reciprocal deal on EU citizens. The UK will not accept the European Court of Justice having jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit, EU citizens living here will come under the jurisdiction of British courts. The 3 million EU citizens here before Brexit will have full right to stay in return for the 1 million UK citizens in the EU having full right to stay there. A school child could do the maths, it's obvious the EU has more to lose on this than the UK. " The cabinet all agreed to offer protections except Theresa May. Clearly she doesnt care about those peoples rights as she alone blocked them getting assurances. She also tried to use them as a tool to divide the EU and failed. And she's offered a substandard level of protection which has been soundly rejected. The EU is looking for an appeals process solely over the protection of rights for these workers in the matters arising from the divorce. As its an international agreement the UK will cave in (again) and agree for an international court deciding these cases should they arise. The EU has nothing to lose here because they know the UK cant walk away from negotiations. So the UK will improve their offer and the EU will allow talks to move on when they are satisfied. The UK is going to agree that all workers and their families have the same rights as Britons if they arrived before 2017 (maybe even March 2019 if the Tories completely fold). They will agree to international arbitration that is above British courts (ECJ or a specific court, doesnt particularly matter which since its just a rose with another name, but it will be above the British court system in these matters). And they will agree that those EU nationals will have the same rights and obligations as UK citizens. And of course those rights will be recipricol to UK citizens in the EU. Thats whats going to happen because thats what the EU wants. And the UK has no leverage. Instead of wasting time they should just agree instead of dragging this out in the hopes of getting something symbolic like a different name on the court that will be above the British courts. Because only an idiot would see that as any sort of victory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree that this is the likely outcome but, if it were to happen, it would leave British citizens at a disadvantage in that they would not have recourse to a higher level of appeal other than the British court system. Can't see the concept of European citizens having more rights than British ones working out. " British citizens would have the same recourse if they were living in the EU and the only cases that would be relevant are cases where EU citizens are treated differently to UK citizens in the UK so a UK citizen would have no need for it if they were living in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu." So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced." Denial of democracy? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If May had guaranteed EU citizens right months ago, maybe it wouldn't have gone do badly May did try to do a deal on this months ago Last Nov/Dec before article 50 was triggered. It's clear the EU don't give a shit about their citizens, they keep dragging this issue out and they have more to lose on this than the UK. They have 3 million citizens in the UK and the UK only has 1 million citizens in the EU by comparison. Its clear its May who doesnt care about the people. Cameron wanted to give legal assurances to the citizens in Britain in the days after the Brexit result. All of the cabinet agreed except Theresa May. She blocked it. She tried to use the peoples welfare to divide the EU members before the negotiations started. But she's and inept strategist and her awkward attempts were seen for exactly what they were. Not to mention the fact that what May was offering and is publicly offering now is not good enough, so why would the EU short change people by agreeing to that when the EU can get a better deal for people? Cameron wasn't in a position to offer anything to anyone in the days after the Brexit result, he resigned as Prime Minister about 3 hours after the referendum result was announced on 24th June 2016. When he resigned as Prime minister he automatically became a back bench MP with no more say on anything than any other back bench MP. Now he has resigned as an MP he doesn't get a say on anything. May has offered the EU a very good reciprocal deal on EU citizens. The UK will not accept the European Court of Justice having jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit, EU citizens living here will come under the jurisdiction of British courts. The 3 million EU citizens here before Brexit will have full right to stay in return for the 1 million UK citizens in the EU having full right to stay there. A school child could do the maths, it's obvious the EU has more to lose on this than the UK. The cabinet all agreed to offer protections except Theresa May. Clearly she doesnt care about those peoples rights as she alone blocked them getting assurances. She also tried to use them as a tool to divide the EU and failed. And she's offered a substandard level of protection which has been soundly rejected. The EU is looking for an appeals process solely over the protection of rights for these workers in the matters arising from the divorce. As its an international agreement the UK will cave in (again) and agree for an international court deciding these cases should they arise. The EU has nothing to lose here because they know the UK cant walk away from negotiations. So the UK will improve their offer and the EU will allow talks to move on when they are satisfied. The UK is going to agree that all workers and their families have the same rights as Britons if they arrived before 2017 (maybe even March 2019 if the Tories completely fold). They will agree to international arbitration that is above British courts (ECJ or a specific court, doesnt particularly matter which since its just a rose with another name, but it will be above the British court system in these matters). And they will agree that those EU nationals will have the same rights and obligations as UK citizens. And of course those rights will be recipricol to UK citizens in the EU. Thats whats going to happen because thats what the EU wants. And the UK has no leverage. Instead of wasting time they should just agree instead of dragging this out in the hopes of getting something symbolic like a different name on the court that will be above the British courts. Because only an idiot would see that as any sort of victory." You really are deluded beyond belief. Theresa May has already guaranteed the 3 million EU citizens would have the same rights as UK citizens after Brexit in her offer, EU citizens here in the UK will come under the jurisdiction of British courts, which will be the same as British citizens here in the uk. The EU wants EU citizens living in the UK to still come under the jurisdiction of the European courts after Brexit and that is just not going to happen. UK citizens living and working in the EU will come under the jurisdiction of the EU courts and when they return to the UK they will come back under the jurisdiction of the British courts because we will be outside of the EU after brexit. The UK can walk away from these negotiations and the good offer for the 3 million EU citizens will go up in smoke. The EU have no choice but to accept the uk's offer on this. The EU know they have the much weaker hand on this particular issue and the numbers are against them (again 3 million EU citizens compared to only 1 million UK citizens). The EU has dragged this out when they could have accepted a deal on this same issue last December, prolonging the uncertainty for their citizens. The EU have no choice but to accept the Uk's offer on this otherwise they completely lose the rights of 3 million of their citizens, the UK will only lose the rights of 1 million of its citizens in the EU, the UK can take that outcome all day long. It will reflect very badly on the EU by refusing to accept a very good and generous offer from Theresa May. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt" Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". " Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -Matt" You can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it." You could also say it was only called to quell an internal quarrel in the Tory party. But regardless. NOT having a referendum is not 'denying democracy'. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. You could also say it was only called to quell an internal quarrel in the Tory party. But regardless. NOT having a referendum is not 'denying democracy'. -Matt" That is right, but it depends how you go about having it, he was forced to give it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it." You are Swedish so it's understandable you don't understand the UK doesn't work like that. The UK is a democratic country with deep seated democratic values. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the result was always going to be implemented, it is the British way to respect democracy. You as a Swede don't get it and it's clear the EU don't get it either, Donald Tusk can invoke the memory of John Lennon all he likes saying "Imagine if the UK decided to stay", frankly it just makes him look foolish and deluded. The EU's well practiced method of asking countries to vote again if they don't give the right answer the first time would never work in the UK and the British people would simply not tolerate it and it is this anti democratic approach by the EU which is one of the reasons that has turned so many Brits against the EU in the first place. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the UK government sent out a leaflet to every house in the UK at a cost of £9 million to the taxpayer that the result of the referendum would be implemented and we are well along that process, article 50 has been triggered. There is no turning back now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. You are Swedish so it's understandable you don't understand the UK doesn't work like that. The UK is a democratic country with deep seated democratic values. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the result was always going to be implemented, it is the British way to respect democracy. You as a Swede don't get it and it's clear the EU don't get it either, Donald Tusk can invoke the memory of John Lennon all he likes saying "Imagine if the UK decided to stay", frankly it just makes him look foolish and deluded. The EU's well practiced method of asking countries to vote again if they don't give the right answer the first time would never work in the UK and the British people would simply not tolerate it and it is this anti democratic approach by the EU which is one of the reasons that has turned so many Brits against the EU in the first place. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the UK government sent out a leaflet to every house in the UK at a cost of £9 million to the taxpayer that the result of the referendum would be implemented and we are well along that process, article 50 has been triggered. There is no turning back now. " Again. Why would not having the referendum have been a 'denial of democracy'. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. You are Swedish so it's understandable you don't understand the UK doesn't work like that. The UK is a democratic country with deep seated democratic values. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the result was always going to be implemented, it is the British way to respect democracy. You as a Swede don't get it and it's clear the EU don't get it either, Donald Tusk can invoke the memory of John Lennon all he likes saying "Imagine if the UK decided to stay", frankly it just makes him look foolish and deluded. The EU's well practiced method of asking countries to vote again if they don't give the right answer the first time would never work in the UK and the British people would simply not tolerate it and it is this anti democratic approach by the EU which is one of the reasons that has turned so many Brits against the EU in the first place. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the UK government sent out a leaflet to every house in the UK at a cost of £9 million to the taxpayer that the result of the referendum would be implemented and we are well along that process, article 50 has been triggered. There is no turning back now. Again. Why would not having the referendum have been a 'denial of democracy'. -Matt" It is democratic, but it is the way they went about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You really are deluded beyond belief. Theresa May has already guaranteed the 3 million EU citizens would have the same rights as UK citizens after Brexit in her offer, EU citizens here in the UK will come under the jurisdiction of British courts, which will be the same as British citizens here in the uk. The EU wants EU citizens living in the UK to still come under the jurisdiction of the European courts after Brexit and that is just not going to happen. UK citizens living and working in the EU will come under the jurisdiction of the EU courts and when they return to the UK they will come back under the jurisdiction of the British courts because we will be outside of the EU after brexit. The UK can walk away from these negotiations and the good offer for the 3 million EU citizens will go up in smoke. The EU have no choice but to accept the uk's offer on this. The EU know they have the much weaker hand on this particular issue and the numbers are against them (again 3 million EU citizens compared to only 1 million UK citizens). The EU has dragged this out when they could have accepted a deal on this same issue last December, prolonging the uncertainty for their citizens. The EU have no choice but to accept the Uk's offer on this otherwise they completely lose the rights of 3 million of their citizens, the UK will only lose the rights of 1 million of its citizens in the EU, the UK can take that outcome all day long. It will reflect very badly on the EU by refusing to accept a very good and generous offer from Theresa May. " Poor Centaur, its going to be a hard day for you when May caves in once again. Mays deal isnt good enough and the EU was right to reject it. The UK cant walk away from the negotiating table and certainly wont do so before trade talks begin (this is why Davis wanted parallel talks instead of sequenced). May will concede on this issue just like the others. I can see the EU allowing the court of arbitration on these matters be called something other than ECJ but it will be a European court above the British one. But that name change will probably be enough for the wilfully deluded like yourself to proclaim a major victory despite conceding everything to the EU that isnt a name change. And the UK will crumble on this before the end of September because they have no choice. Time is running out and the Tories still need to come cap in hand to ask the EU for a transitional deal where they can remain as members of the customs union (without a democratic voice in the EU) until they get years of negotiations done to sort out their trade. And that transitional deal will take time to do and times running out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have told the EU what we want, why haven't they just accepted it like all the Brexiters said they would? We're in charge, they have to accept what ever we say, right? " Not a single brexiter I have ever come across as ever said that you are just being sarcastic. If you think this then you have a vivid imagination and this is if anything remainers talking to justify there own ignorance and negetivity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have told the EU what we want, why haven't they just accepted it like all the Brexiters said they would? We're in charge, they have to accept what ever we say, right? Not a single brexiter I have ever come across as ever said that you are just being sarcastic. If you think this then you have a vivid imagination and this is if anything remainers talking to justify there own ignorance and negetivity" CandM4U earlier today said: The UK says to the EU we want a good exit deal otherwise you are fucked. End of CentaurUK in this very thread: The EU have no choice but to accept the uk's offer on this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do agree that all citizens living in the UK be they UK or EU nationals then OUR UK courts should be the ONLY court system IF we are to break cleanly away from the EU." Exactly this. It is what is expected of us leaving the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. You are Swedish so it's understandable you don't understand the UK doesn't work like that. The UK is a democratic country with deep seated democratic values. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the result was always going to be implemented, it is the British way to respect democracy. You as a Swede don't get it and it's clear the EU don't get it either, Donald Tusk can invoke the memory of John Lennon all he likes saying "Imagine if the UK decided to stay", frankly it just makes him look foolish and deluded. The EU's well practiced method of asking countries to vote again if they don't give the right answer the first time would never work in the UK and the British people would simply not tolerate it and it is this anti democratic approach by the EU which is one of the reasons that has turned so many Brits against the EU in the first place. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the UK government sent out a leaflet to every house in the UK at a cost of £9 million to the taxpayer that the result of the referendum would be implemented and we are well along that process, article 50 has been triggered. There is no turning back now. Again. Why would not having the referendum have been a 'denial of democracy'. -Matt" If I said I want another general election next week, and May doesn't call one, is that a denial of democracy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. You are Swedish so it's understandable you don't understand the UK doesn't work like that. The UK is a democratic country with deep seated democratic values. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the result was always going to be implemented, it is the British way to respect democracy. You as a Swede don't get it and it's clear the EU don't get it either, Donald Tusk can invoke the memory of John Lennon all he likes saying "Imagine if the UK decided to stay", frankly it just makes him look foolish and deluded. The EU's well practiced method of asking countries to vote again if they don't give the right answer the first time would never work in the UK and the British people would simply not tolerate it and it is this anti democratic approach by the EU which is one of the reasons that has turned so many Brits against the EU in the first place. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the UK government sent out a leaflet to every house in the UK at a cost of £9 million to the taxpayer that the result of the referendum would be implemented and we are well along that process, article 50 has been triggered. There is no turning back now. Again. Why would not having the referendum have been a 'denial of democracy'. -Matt If I said I want another general election next week, and May doesn't call one, is that a denial of democracy? " No, because a majority of people might not want one. When we elect a government we know that it will be for a maximum of 5 years. A high proportion of the population wanted to have a vote on EU membership, hence the result. Do you think that a 40 year gap between referendums on the issue of EU/EC membership is unreasonable when you consider that most of the population didn't get to vote last time and the world has grown smaller and changed since then? Hopefully we will have another referendum in 40 years time if the EU still exists | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. You are Swedish so it's understandable you don't understand the UK doesn't work like that. The UK is a democratic country with deep seated democratic values. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the result was always going to be implemented, it is the British way to respect democracy. You as a Swede don't get it and it's clear the EU don't get it either, Donald Tusk can invoke the memory of John Lennon all he likes saying "Imagine if the UK decided to stay", frankly it just makes him look foolish and deluded. The EU's well practiced method of asking countries to vote again if they don't give the right answer the first time would never work in the UK and the British people would simply not tolerate it and it is this anti democratic approach by the EU which is one of the reasons that has turned so many Brits against the EU in the first place. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the UK government sent out a leaflet to every house in the UK at a cost of £9 million to the taxpayer that the result of the referendum would be implemented and we are well along that process, article 50 has been triggered. There is no turning back now. Again. Why would not having the referendum have been a 'denial of democracy'. -Matt If I said I want another general election next week, and May doesn't call one, is that a denial of democracy? No, because a majority of people might not want one. When we elect a government we know that it will be for a maximum of 5 years. A high proportion of the population wanted to have a vote on EU membership, hence the result. Do you think that a 40 year gap between referendums on the issue of EU/EC membership is unreasonable when you consider that most of the population didn't get to vote last time and the world has grown smaller and changed since then? Hopefully we will have another referendum in 40 years time if the EU still exists" So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. You are Swedish so it's understandable you don't understand the UK doesn't work like that. The UK is a democratic country with deep seated democratic values. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the result was always going to be implemented, it is the British way to respect democracy. You as a Swede don't get it and it's clear the EU don't get it either, Donald Tusk can invoke the memory of John Lennon all he likes saying "Imagine if the UK decided to stay", frankly it just makes him look foolish and deluded. The EU's well practiced method of asking countries to vote again if they don't give the right answer the first time would never work in the UK and the British people would simply not tolerate it and it is this anti democratic approach by the EU which is one of the reasons that has turned so many Brits against the EU in the first place. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the UK government sent out a leaflet to every house in the UK at a cost of £9 million to the taxpayer that the result of the referendum would be implemented and we are well along that process, article 50 has been triggered. There is no turning back now. Again. Why would not having the referendum have been a 'denial of democracy'. -Matt If I said I want another general election next week, and May doesn't call one, is that a denial of democracy? No, because a majority of people might not want one. When we elect a government we know that it will be for a maximum of 5 years. A high proportion of the population wanted to have a vote on EU membership, hence the result. Do you think that a 40 year gap between referendums on the issue of EU/EC membership is unreasonable when you consider that most of the population didn't get to vote last time and the world has grown smaller and changed since then? Hopefully we will have another referendum in 40 years time if the EU still exists So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt" Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. You are Swedish so it's understandable you don't understand the UK doesn't work like that. The UK is a democratic country with deep seated democratic values. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the result was always going to be implemented, it is the British way to respect democracy. You as a Swede don't get it and it's clear the EU don't get it either, Donald Tusk can invoke the memory of John Lennon all he likes saying "Imagine if the UK decided to stay", frankly it just makes him look foolish and deluded. The EU's well practiced method of asking countries to vote again if they don't give the right answer the first time would never work in the UK and the British people would simply not tolerate it and it is this anti democratic approach by the EU which is one of the reasons that has turned so many Brits against the EU in the first place. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the UK government sent out a leaflet to every house in the UK at a cost of £9 million to the taxpayer that the result of the referendum would be implemented and we are well along that process, article 50 has been triggered. There is no turning back now. Again. Why would not having the referendum have been a 'denial of democracy'. -Matt If I said I want another general election next week, and May doesn't call one, is that a denial of democracy? No, because a majority of people might not want one. When we elect a government we know that it will be for a maximum of 5 years. A high proportion of the population wanted to have a vote on EU membership, hence the result. Do you think that a 40 year gap between referendums on the issue of EU/EC membership is unreasonable when you consider that most of the population didn't get to vote last time and the world has grown smaller and changed since then? Hopefully we will have another referendum in 40 years time if the EU still exists" I can't remember a high proportion of people wanting a GE this june, yet we had one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. " So you don't think our system of parliamentary democracy is up to the job? You think that unless things are decided by referendum that it is 'denial of democracy'? Surely the referendum we have just had is the best example of why we elect officials to represent us in our democracy and we don't have direct democracy. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. So you don't think our system of parliamentary democracy is up to the job? You think that unless things are decided by referendum that it is 'denial of democracy'? Surely the referendum we have just had is the best example of why we elect officials to represent us in our democracy and we don't have direct democracy. -Matt" Maybe have the dicussion with CLCC and his post above | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. So you don't think our system of parliamentary democracy is up to the job? You think that unless things are decided by referendum that it is 'denial of democracy'? Surely the referendum we have just had is the best example of why we elect officials to represent us in our democracy and we don't have direct democracy. -Matt Maybe have the dicussion with CLCC and his post above" I was rather hoping sensual_lad would come back as it was he that said that it would be a 'denial of democracy' if we didn't have the referendum in the first place. I seem to be getting some strange vibe at the moment that people think that referendums are the only way to have 'democracy'. I put that in quotes as we all know that the referendum we just had was a travesty in terms of democratic process. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. So you don't think our system of parliamentary democracy is up to the job? You think that unless things are decided by referendum that it is 'denial of democracy'? Surely the referendum we have just had is the best example of why we elect officials to represent us in our democracy and we don't have direct democracy. -Matt Maybe have the dicussion with CLCC and his post above" I'm agreeing with Matt! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. So you don't think our system of parliamentary democracy is up to the job? You think that unless things are decided by referendum that it is 'denial of democracy'? Surely the referendum we have just had is the best example of why we elect officials to represent us in our democracy and we don't have direct democracy. -Matt Maybe have the dicussion with CLCC and his post above I was rather hoping sensual_lad would come back as it was he that said that it would be a 'denial of democracy' if we didn't have the referendum in the first place. I seem to be getting some strange vibe at the moment that people think that referendums are the only way to have 'democracy'. I put that in quotes as we all know that the referendum we just had was a travesty in terms of democratic process. -Matt" Are you for real? It was the most democratic process we've ever had in this country. A referendum that was approved by a large majority of our elected representatives, 6 to 1 I think and then a straight choice for the electorate and the biggest vote ever. I am sure you would have said it was a great example of the democratic process had you won. And I am also sure that you will deny that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an offer from a Remainer be worded? What would you give, and what would you take?We wouldnt have a referendum in the first place and still be in the eu. So a denial of democracy is ok, and the end justifies the means? For once, the usual response by politicians to an anti-EU result - go away and think again - has not been countenanced. Denial of democracy? -Matt Refusing to acknowledge the result of the referendum, Remainers just answering every question by saying we wouldn't leave we would just remain in the EU. Remainers are picking fault with anything and everything but refuse to answer difficult questions with any kind of meaningful answer other than "we would remain". Huh. Interesting. Now try and answer the question. Maybe I was too terse above. Why would not having the referendum in the first place be denying democracy? -MattYou can argue that the referendum was not legally binding, that is not democratic and cameron was against brexit so he could of done more to say no to it. You are Swedish so it's understandable you don't understand the UK doesn't work like that. The UK is a democratic country with deep seated democratic values. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the result was always going to be implemented, it is the British way to respect democracy. You as a Swede don't get it and it's clear the EU don't get it either, Donald Tusk can invoke the memory of John Lennon all he likes saying "Imagine if the UK decided to stay", frankly it just makes him look foolish and deluded. The EU's well practiced method of asking countries to vote again if they don't give the right answer the first time would never work in the UK and the British people would simply not tolerate it and it is this anti democratic approach by the EU which is one of the reasons that has turned so many Brits against the EU in the first place. The EU referendum may not have been legally binding but the UK government sent out a leaflet to every house in the UK at a cost of £9 million to the taxpayer that the result of the referendum would be implemented and we are well along that process, article 50 has been triggered. There is no turning back now. Again. Why would not having the referendum have been a 'denial of democracy'. -Matt If I said I want another general election next week, and May doesn't call one, is that a denial of democracy? No, because a majority of people might not want one. When we elect a government we know that it will be for a maximum of 5 years. A high proportion of the population wanted to have a vote on EU membership, hence the result. Do you think that a 40 year gap between referendums on the issue of EU/EC membership is unreasonable when you consider that most of the population didn't get to vote last time and the world has grown smaller and changed since then? Hopefully we will have another referendum in 40 years time if the EU still exists" There was also the result of the last European MEP election to take into account in 2014 which ukip won and returned more MEP's for ukip than any other party. Surely when you have a party like Ukip who want to take Britain out of the EU and they win the European MEP elections in this country that is sending a message loud and clear to Parliament and government that the people are not happy with the current arrangements we have with the EU. The result in 2014 when ukip won suggested the people wanted out of the EU and indeed they did because they voted out in the referendum in 2016. Given that ukip won in 2014, Cameron really had no choice but to put it directly to the people in a referendum to decide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. So you don't think our system of parliamentary democracy is up to the job? You think that unless things are decided by referendum that it is 'denial of democracy'? Surely the referendum we have just had is the best example of why we elect officials to represent us in our democracy and we don't have direct democracy. -Matt Maybe have the dicussion with CLCC and his post above I was rather hoping sensual_lad would come back as it was he that said that it would be a 'denial of democracy' if we didn't have the referendum in the first place. I seem to be getting some strange vibe at the moment that people think that referendums are the only way to have 'democracy'. I put that in quotes as we all know that the referendum we just had was a travesty in terms of democratic process. -Matt Are you for real? It was the most democratic process we've ever had in this country. A referendum that was approved by a large majority of our elected representatives, 6 to 1 I think and then a straight choice for the electorate and the biggest vote ever. I am sure you would have said it was a great example of the democratic process had you won. And I am also sure that you will deny that" It was a complete fucking travesty of democracy. How do you think you democracy was served with such a blunt and vague question? If it was done properly then we likely wouldn't be having half there arguments. See the post above, even the co-chair of Vote Leave thinks it was an abuse of democratic process. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. So you don't think our system of parliamentary democracy is up to the job? You think that unless things are decided by referendum that it is 'denial of democracy'? Surely the referendum we have just had is the best example of why we elect officials to represent us in our democracy and we don't have direct democracy. -Matt Maybe have the dicussion with CLCC and his post above I was rather hoping sensual_lad would come back as it was he that said that it would be a 'denial of democracy' if we didn't have the referendum in the first place. I seem to be getting some strange vibe at the moment that people think that referendums are the only way to have 'democracy'. I put that in quotes as we all know that the referendum we just had was a travesty in terms of democratic process. -Matt Are you for real? It was the most democratic process we've ever had in this country. A referendum that was approved by a large majority of our elected representatives, 6 to 1 I think and then a straight choice for the electorate and the biggest vote ever. I am sure you would have said it was a great example of the democratic process had you won. And I am also sure that you will deny that It was a complete fucking travesty of democracy. How do you think you democracy was served with such a blunt and vague question? If it was done properly then we likely wouldn't be having half there arguments. See the post above, even the co-chair of Vote Leave thinks it was an abuse of democratic process. -Matt" How can a question be both blunt and vague? Didn't you understand the question? I really don't care what she says, or more than likejy how it has been spun. So I take it you think that it would have been more democratic if the elected government of the day had simply taken us out of the EU? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. So you don't think our system of parliamentary democracy is up to the job? You think that unless things are decided by referendum that it is 'denial of democracy'? Surely the referendum we have just had is the best example of why we elect officials to represent us in our democracy and we don't have direct democracy. -Matt Maybe have the dicussion with CLCC and his post above I was rather hoping sensual_lad would come back as it was he that said that it would be a 'denial of democracy' if we didn't have the referendum in the first place. I seem to be getting some strange vibe at the moment that people think that referendums are the only way to have 'democracy'. I put that in quotes as we all know that the referendum we just had was a travesty in terms of democratic process. -Matt Are you for real? It was the most democratic process we've ever had in this country. A referendum that was approved by a large majority of our elected representatives, 6 to 1 I think and then a straight choice for the electorate and the biggest vote ever. I am sure you would have said it was a great example of the democratic process had you won. And I am also sure that you will deny that It was a complete fucking travesty of democracy. How do you think you democracy was served with such a blunt and vague question? If it was done properly then we likely wouldn't be having half there arguments. See the post above, even the co-chair of Vote Leave thinks it was an abuse of democratic process. -Matt How can a question be both blunt and vague? Didn't you understand the question? I really don't care what she says, or more than likejy how it has been spun. So I take it you think that it would have been more democratic if the elected government of the day had simply taken us out of the EU?" Why can't it be both blunt (yes/no) and vague (no details, what about customs union etc). Or is having two adjectives in one sentence too much? 
So you have the co-chair of Vote Leave saying it was u democratic and you don't care?! Really? Does that not set some kind of alarm bells off in your head? I suppose the leader of Leave.eu saying their campaign was based on a pack of lies doesn't worry you either?
I really do wonder sometime what exactly would have to happen to make some leavers question the travesty of what is going on.
And no, of course I wouldn't want the elected government to 'simply' take us out. If they produced a bill and a plan of what would be involved with some actual detail and debated and voted on that in the proper manner, then yes, I would consider that democratic. In short, the government held an advisory referendum and asked people who had no idea of the details of what they were voting on or the consequences to vote. And when it came back saying it was an almost even split, rather then take that as a sign that something was up and dig into it further, they just charged ahead to the rallying crys of 'the will of the people'.
I for one didn't know the difference between the ECHR or the ECJ before the referendum. I had no idea that the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. I'd never heard of Euratom or many of the other dozens of agencies now mentioned. I'm sure I was not alone in lacking understanding of the detail.
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, because a high proportion wanted to have a referendum, if the government DIDN'T have a referendum then that would be 'denial of democracy'? And what would we have a referendum on in 40 years time, I thought we were leaving and the EU is going to collapse? -Matt Yes it would. Because it should be up to the people to decide who governs us and who makes our laws etc. And that is why I concluded with if it still exists. So you don't think our system of parliamentary democracy is up to the job? You think that unless things are decided by referendum that it is 'denial of democracy'? Surely the referendum we have just had is the best example of why we elect officials to represent us in our democracy and we don't have direct democracy. -Matt Maybe have the dicussion with CLCC and his post above I was rather hoping sensual_lad would come back as it was he that said that it would be a 'denial of democracy' if we didn't have the referendum in the first place. I seem to be getting some strange vibe at the moment that people think that referendums are the only way to have 'democracy'. I put that in quotes as we all know that the referendum we just had was a travesty in terms of democratic process. -Matt Are you for real? It was the most democratic process we've ever had in this country. A referendum that was approved by a large majority of our elected representatives, 6 to 1 I think and then a straight choice for the electorate and the biggest vote ever. I am sure you would have said it was a great example of the democratic process had you won. And I am also sure that you will deny that It was a complete fucking travesty of democracy. How do you think you democracy was served with such a blunt and vague question? If it was done properly then we likely wouldn't be having half there arguments. See the post above, even the co-chair of Vote Leave thinks it was an abuse of democratic process. -Matt How can a question be both blunt and vague? Didn't you understand the question? I really don't care what she says, or more than likejy how it has been spun. So I take it you think that it would have been more democratic if the elected government of the day had simply taken us out of the EU? Why can't it be both blunt (yes/no) and vague (no details, what about customs union etc). Or is having two adjectives in one sentence too much?
So you have the co-chair of Vote Leave saying it was u democratic and you don't care?! Really? Does that not set some kind of alarm bells off in your head? I suppose the leader of Leave.eu saying their campaign was based on a pack of lies doesn't worry you either?
I really do wonder sometime what exactly would have to happen to make some leavers question the travesty of what is going on.
And no, of course I wouldn't want the elected government to 'simply' take us out. If they produced a bill and a plan of what would be involved with some actual detail and debated and voted on that in the proper manner, then yes, I would consider that democratic. In short, the government held an advisory referendum and asked people who had no idea of the details of what they were voting on or the consequences to vote. And when it came back saying it was an almost even split, rather then take that as a sign that something was up and dig into it further, they just charged ahead to the rallying crys of 'the will of the people'.
I for one didn't know the difference between the ECHR or the ECJ before the referendum. I had no idea that the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. I'd never heard of Euratom or many of the other dozens of agencies now mentioned. I'm sure I was not alone in lacking understanding of the detail.
-Matt"I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher. A vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market and the customs union etc, most people were aware of that, they were told often enough and if people didn't understand that much and wanted to leave they would have voted to leave anyway. I am sick of hearing the excuse of leave lies, as if that played some kind of big part. The remain side had the backing and funding of the government, of all the main parties, of the treasury (lies) the IMF and all major financial institutions, they even wheeled out the numb nut US presidemt for support, and then there was the strong argument for the status quo and still they lost! It was democracy at its best and a joy to behold | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well said "So which bit of the leader of Leave.eu stating that they never would of won the referendum if it wasn't for the lie of £350M on the side of the bus do you not understand? I mean this is not just some random bloke on a swingers forum ranting. This is the head of the official leave campaign saying that they would not have won the referendum without lying. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can someone tell me, what we get out the deal, I mean the 50 odd millions in this country, as the 3 million who are from the e.u stay here do they still have the right to free treatment in all the other countries when they travel as they will have a dual nationality with an e.u country seems a great deal for them and we get shafted as usual!" Of course they will and this is the problem that Mrs May has. There will be a two tier society with EU residents who live and work here having greater rights than British people because the EU citizens will still have freedom of movement across the EU borders whereas British citizens will face border controls at least as stringent as those facing Turks because Turkey is in the customs union whereas the U.K. seemingly wants no part of that either. Brexiters will tell you that it is the other way around and that the EU citizens who will be hard done by in any agreement because they will have to have an EU passport, whereas Brits will have a blue passport and that is much better. Then again Brexiters have to try to put a positive spin on everything because there really is nothing to be positive about Brexit. Well other than the £350 million a week business.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can someone tell me, what we get out the deal, I mean the 50 odd millions in this country, as the 3 million who are from the e.u stay here do they still have the right to free treatment in all the other countries when they travel as they will have a dual nationality with an e.u country seems a great deal for them and we get shafted as usual! Of course they will and this is the problem that Mrs May has. There will be a two tier society with EU residents who live and work here having greater rights than British people because the EU citizens will still have freedom of movement across the EU borders whereas British citizens will face border controls at least as stringent as those facing Turks because Turkey is in the customs union whereas the U.K. seemingly wants no part of that either. Brexiters will tell you that it is the other way around and that the EU citizens who will be hard done by in any agreement because they will have to have an EU passport, whereas Brits will have a blue passport and that is much better. Then again Brexiters have to try to put a positive spin on everything because there really is nothing to be positive about Brexit. Well other than the £350 million a week business...." So why did you lose! Thats another thing, people referred to as Brexiters in a derogatory tone as if they are some strange outcast minority. They are the majority! There are plently of reasons to be positive about Brexit, just ask the EU nationals comimg to live here why that is. And stringent border controls? What the fuck is wrong with that?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher." Then why is it that after a year of the public hearing a lot more detail of what leaving the EU actually means more Brits have a favourable opinion of the EU than unfavourable? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher. Then why is it that after a year of the public hearing a lot more detail of what leaving the EU actually means more Brits have a favourable opinion of the EU than unfavourable?" Are you having a laugh? 
I think you've just about lost all credibility now. Keep taking the pharmaceuticals | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can someone tell me, what we get out the deal, I mean the 50 odd millions in this country, as the 3 million who are from the e.u stay here do they still have the right to free treatment in all the other countries when they travel as they will have a dual nationality with an e.u country seems a great deal for them and we get shafted as usual! Of course they will and this is the problem that Mrs May has. There will be a two tier society with EU residents who live and work here having greater rights than British people because the EU citizens will still have freedom of movement across the EU borders whereas British citizens will face border controls at least as stringent as those facing Turks because Turkey is in the customs union whereas the U.K. seemingly wants no part of that either. Brexiters will tell you that it is the other way around and that the EU citizens who will be hard done by in any agreement because they will have to have an EU passport, whereas Brits will have a blue passport and that is much better. Then again Brexiters have to try to put a positive spin on everything because there really is nothing to be positive about Brexit. Well other than the £350 million a week business.... So why did you lose! Thats another thing, people referred to as Brexiters in a derogatory tone as if they are some strange outcast minority. They are the majority! There are plently of reasons to be positive about Brexit, just ask the EU nationals comimg to live here why that is. And stringent border controls? What the fuck is wrong with that??" the problem is they work both ways now talented Brits might lose out to eu jobs cause of the need of a visa that's and it had put british companies at a bit of a disadvantage when competing for European contacts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher. Then why is it that after a year of the public hearing a lot more detail of what leaving the EU actually means more Brits have a favourable opinion of the EU than unfavourable?" I totally agree millions of brits love the eu now thats why so many voted for the pro eu libdems in the election, oh hang on  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher. Then why is it that after a year of the public hearing a lot more detail of what leaving the EU actually means more Brits have a favourable opinion of the EU than unfavourable? Are you having a laugh?
I think you've just about lost all credibility now. Keep taking the pharmaceuticals "2016 EU has higher unfavourable opinions in the UK. Only 44% have a favourable view of the EU. http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/pm_2016-06-07_brexit-01/ 2017 54% of people in the UK have a favourable opinion of the EU. http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/pg_2017-06-15-eu-brexit-00-00/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher. Then why is it that after a year of the public hearing a lot more detail of what leaving the EU actually means more Brits have a favourable opinion of the EU than unfavourable? Are you having a laugh?
I think you've just about lost all credibility now. Keep taking the pharmaceuticals
2016 EU has higher unfavourable opinions in the UK. Only 44% have a favourable view of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/pm_2016-06-07_brexit-01/
2017 54% of people in the UK have a favourable opinion of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/pg_2017-06-15-eu-brexit-00-00/"Uk General election result on 8th June 2017 - 85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos. The parties who had a clear message they wanted to remain in the EU could only get a pathetic 15% of the vote. I'd say that's a pretty clear message the country still wants to Leave.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher. Then why is it that after a year of the public hearing a lot more detail of what leaving the EU actually means more Brits have a favourable opinion of the EU than unfavourable? Are you having a laugh?
I think you've just about lost all credibility now. Keep taking the pharmaceuticals
2016 EU has higher unfavourable opinions in the UK. Only 44% have a favourable view of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/pm_2016-06-07_brexit-01/
2017 54% of people in the UK have a favourable opinion of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/pg_2017-06-15-eu-brexit-00-00/
Uk General election result on 8th June 2017 - 85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos. The parties who had a clear message they wanted to remain in the EU could only get a pathetic 15% of the vote. I'd say that's a pretty clear message the country still wants to Leave. "I didnt vote for brexit...but voted Labour work that out genius  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher. Then why is it that after a year of the public hearing a lot more detail of what leaving the EU actually means more Brits have a favourable opinion of the EU than unfavourable? Are you having a laugh?
I think you've just about lost all credibility now. Keep taking the pharmaceuticals
2016 EU has higher unfavourable opinions in the UK. Only 44% have a favourable view of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/pm_2016-06-07_brexit-01/
2017 54% of people in the UK have a favourable opinion of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/pg_2017-06-15-eu-brexit-00-00/
Uk General election result on 8th June 2017 - 85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos. The parties who had a clear message they wanted to remain in the EU could only get a pathetic 15% of the vote. I'd say that's a pretty clear message the country still wants to Leave.
I didnt vote for brexit...but voted Labour work that out genius "Labour who had Brexit in their general election manifesto. You voted for Brexit by default genius. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher. Then why is it that after a year of the public hearing a lot more detail of what leaving the EU actually means more Brits have a favourable opinion of the EU than unfavourable? Are you having a laugh?
I think you've just about lost all credibility now. Keep taking the pharmaceuticals
2016 EU has higher unfavourable opinions in the UK. Only 44% have a favourable view of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/pm_2016-06-07_brexit-01/
2017 54% of people in the UK have a favourable opinion of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/pg_2017-06-15-eu-brexit-00-00/
Uk General election result on 8th June 2017 - 85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos. The parties who had a clear message they wanted to remain in the EU could only get a pathetic 15% of the vote. I'd say that's a pretty clear message the country still wants to Leave.
I didnt vote for brexit...but voted Labour work that out genius
Labour who had Brexit in their general election manifesto. You voted for Brexit by default genius. "Nah i voted for more than just brexit genius....same as half the tory votes did...you really are so simple | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure you weren't but I'm even more sure that if everyone knew all the details then the leave vote would have been higher. Then why is it that after a year of the public hearing a lot more detail of what leaving the EU actually means more Brits have a favourable opinion of the EU than unfavourable? Are you having a laugh?
I think you've just about lost all credibility now. Keep taking the pharmaceuticals
2016 EU has higher unfavourable opinions in the UK. Only 44% have a favourable view of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/pm_2016-06-07_brexit-01/
2017 54% of people in the UK have a favourable opinion of the EU.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/pg_2017-06-15-eu-brexit-00-00/
Uk General election result on 8th June 2017 - 85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos. The parties who had a clear message they wanted to remain in the EU could only get a pathetic 15% of the vote. I'd say that's a pretty clear message the country still wants to Leave. "Thats a ridiculous notion and you know it. People voted for the parties for many reasons. Brexit is one issue. If the NHS, penions or security are more important people will vote based on that. Or are you trying to say that people voted for the Tories because of the Dementia tax and it should be implemented immediately because it was in the manifesto, because its curious that the public seem to be happu enough to see it disappear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos" In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? " Like i just said to him...hes a genius | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? " 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths. "Please tell me your kidding cetaur and dont really believe that makes up the 85% voted for it lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths. "Hey Centaur I have a pound here. I'll keep 15% (thats 15p) you can have the other 85% of it but only after I first remove 32p... How much are you getting Centaur? 85p or 58p? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths. "You should actually check what Labour's manifesto says before claiming them for your economically suicidal BREXIT strategy. "Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will PRIORITISE JOBS and living standards, BUILD A CLOSE new RELATIONSHIP with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a MEANINGFUL ROLE TO PARLIAMENT throughout negotiations. We will end Theresa May’s RECKLESS approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain. We will SCRAP the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first" Not exactly the ringing pro hard BREXIT strategy you seem to claim, is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can someone tell me, what we get out the deal, I mean the 50 odd millions in this country, as the 3 million who are from the e.u stay here do they still have the right to free treatment in all the other countries when they travel as they will have a dual nationality with an e.u country seems a great deal for them and we get shafted as usual! Of course they will and this is the problem that Mrs May has. There will be a two tier society with EU residents who live and work here having greater rights than British people because the EU citizens will still have freedom of movement across the EU borders whereas British citizens will face border controls at least as stringent as those facing Turks because Turkey is in the customs union whereas the U.K. seemingly wants no part of that either. Brexiters will tell you that it is the other way around and that the EU citizens who will be hard done by in any agreement because they will have to have an EU passport, whereas Brits will have a blue passport and that is much better. Then again Brexiters have to try to put a positive spin on everything because there really is nothing to be positive about Brexit. Well other than the £350 million a week business.... So why did you lose! Thats another thing, people referred to as Brexiters in a derogatory tone as if they are some strange outcast minority. They are the majority! There are plently of reasons to be positive about Brexit, just ask the EU nationals comimg to live here why that is. And stringent border controls? What the fuck is wrong with that??" I really don't think that calling people in favour of BREXIT BREXITers is particularly derogatory. Are you ashamed to be called a BREXITer or something? Why would I ask an EU national to tell me about the reasons to be positive about BREXIT when there's loads of BREXITers who actually voted for it who I can, and have asked? Unfortunately none of them have given an answer that actually stands up to any real critical analysis or argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
You should actually check what Labour's manifesto says before claiming them for your economically suicidal BREXIT strategy.
"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
We will PRIORITISE JOBS and living standards, BUILD A CLOSE new RELATIONSHIP with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a MEANINGFUL ROLE TO PARLIAMENT throughout negotiations.
We will end Theresa May’s RECKLESS approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
We will SCRAP the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour will always put jobs and the economy first"
Not exactly the ringing pro hard BREXIT strategy you seem to claim, is it?"Doesn't actually say much either though, does it? Does it go on to say HOW they are going to do any of the above? With a tweak here or there, it could slot straight into the Tory manifesto. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
You should actually check what Labour's manifesto says before claiming them for your economically suicidal BREXIT strategy.
"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
We will PRIORITISE JOBS and living standards, BUILD A CLOSE new RELATIONSHIP with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a MEANINGFUL ROLE TO PARLIAMENT throughout negotiations.
We will end Theresa May’s RECKLESS approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
We will SCRAP the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour will always put jobs and the economy first"
Not exactly the ringing pro hard BREXIT strategy you seem to claim, is it?
Doesn't actually say much either though, does it? Does it go on to say HOW they are going to do any of the above?
With a tweak here or there, it could slot straight into the Tory manifesto."Exactly and people in the Labour party were saying during the general election campaign that Labour would still take the UK out of the single market and the customs union. Either way Labour is still in favour of Brexit none the less. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
Hey Centaur I have a pound here. I'll keep 15% (thats 15p) you can have the other 85% of it but only after I first remove 32p...
How much are you getting Centaur? 85p or 58p?
"Well 100% of those registered to vote could have done, if they couldnt be arsed then thats their problem, and who is to say that any of them wanted brexit or not, its more bad loser syndrome | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
You should actually check what Labour's manifesto says before claiming them for your economically suicidal BREXIT strategy.
"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
We will PRIORITISE JOBS and living standards, BUILD A CLOSE new RELATIONSHIP with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a MEANINGFUL ROLE TO PARLIAMENT throughout negotiations.
We will end Theresa May’s RECKLESS approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
We will SCRAP the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour will always put jobs and the economy first"
Not exactly the ringing pro hard BREXIT strategy you seem to claim, is it?
Doesn't actually say much either though, does it? Does it go on to say HOW they are going to do any of the above?
With a tweak here or there, it could slot straight into the Tory manifesto.
Exactly and people in the Labour party were saying during the general election campaign that Labour would still take the UK out of the single market and the customs union. Either way Labour is still in favour of Brexit none the less. "It's the old 'BREXIT means BREXIT' thing again. Your BREXIT means leaving the single market and customs union, my BREXIT means leaving neither. While Labour's BREXIT may end up sounding like your BREXIT it will actually be far more like mine. ...negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Think about what that actually means. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
You should actually check what Labour's manifesto says before claiming them for your economically suicidal BREXIT strategy.
"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
We will PRIORITISE JOBS and living standards, BUILD A CLOSE new RELATIONSHIP with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a MEANINGFUL ROLE TO PARLIAMENT throughout negotiations.
We will end Theresa May’s RECKLESS approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
We will SCRAP the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour will always put jobs and the economy first"
Not exactly the ringing pro hard BREXIT strategy you seem to claim, is it?
Doesn't actually say much either though, does it? Does it go on to say HOW they are going to do any of the above?
With a tweak here or there, it could slot straight into the Tory manifesto.
Exactly and people in the Labour party were saying during the general election campaign that Labour would still take the UK out of the single market and the customs union. Either way Labour is still in favour of Brexit none the less.
It's the old 'BREXIT means BREXIT' thing again. Your BREXIT means leaving the single market and customs union, my BREXIT means leaving neither. While Labour's BREXIT may end up sounding like your BREXIT it will actually be far more like mine.
...negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Think about what that actually means.
"We are not having a Labour Brexit though so your point is largely irrelevant. Labour lost the election and are facing another 5 years in opposition. We are having a Conservative Brexit because they won the election. Theresa May, David Davis, Philip Hammond and Liam Fox have all said since the general election we are still leaving the single market and the customs union, this enables us to take back control of our borders, our laws and our money, and having the ability to sign our own trade deals around the rest of the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
You should actually check what Labour's manifesto says before claiming them for your economically suicidal BREXIT strategy.
"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
We will PRIORITISE JOBS and living standards, BUILD A CLOSE new RELATIONSHIP with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a MEANINGFUL ROLE TO PARLIAMENT throughout negotiations.
We will end Theresa May’s RECKLESS approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
We will SCRAP the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour will always put jobs and the economy first"
Not exactly the ringing pro hard BREXIT strategy you seem to claim, is it?
Doesn't actually say much either though, does it? Does it go on to say HOW they are going to do any of the above?
With a tweak here or there, it could slot straight into the Tory manifesto.
Exactly and people in the Labour party were saying during the general election campaign that Labour would still take the UK out of the single market and the customs union. Either way Labour is still in favour of Brexit none the less.
It's the old 'BREXIT means BREXIT' thing again. Your BREXIT means leaving the single market and customs union, my BREXIT means leaving neither. While Labour's BREXIT may end up sounding like your BREXIT it will actually be far more like mine.
...negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Think about what that actually means.
We are not having a Labour Brexit though so your point is largely irrelevant. Labour lost the election and are facing another 5 years in opposition. We are having a Conservative Brexit because they won the election. Theresa May, David Davis, Philip Hammond and Liam Fox have all said since the general election we are still leaving the single market and the customs union, this enables us to take back control of our borders, our laws and our money, and having the ability to sign our own trade deals around the rest of the world. "It's you who keeps saying that Labour supports your version of BREXIT. I'm just pointing out that in fact it does not and that you can not claim Labours 40% of the vote as vote for your economically suicidal hard BREXIT because it clearly isn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
You should actually check what Labour's manifesto says before claiming them for your economically suicidal BREXIT strategy.
"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
We will PRIORITISE JOBS and living standards, BUILD A CLOSE new RELATIONSHIP with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a MEANINGFUL ROLE TO PARLIAMENT throughout negotiations.
We will end Theresa May’s RECKLESS approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
We will SCRAP the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour will always put jobs and the economy first"
Not exactly the ringing pro hard BREXIT strategy you seem to claim, is it?
Doesn't actually say much either though, does it? Does it go on to say HOW they are going to do any of the above?
With a tweak here or there, it could slot straight into the Tory manifesto.
Exactly and people in the Labour party were saying during the general election campaign that Labour would still take the UK out of the single market and the customs union. Either way Labour is still in favour of Brexit none the less.
It's the old 'BREXIT means BREXIT' thing again. Your BREXIT means leaving the single market and customs union, my BREXIT means leaving neither. While Labour's BREXIT may end up sounding like your BREXIT it will actually be far more like mine.
...negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on RETAINING THE BENEFITS of the Single Market and the Customs Union – WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Think about what that actually means.
We are not having a Labour Brexit though so your point is largely irrelevant. Labour lost the election and are facing another 5 years in opposition. We are having a Conservative Brexit because they won the election. Theresa May, David Davis, Philip Hammond and Liam Fox have all said since the general election we are still leaving the single market and the customs union, this enables us to take back control of our borders, our laws and our money, and having the ability to sign our own trade deals around the rest of the world. "Dream on centaur we're in the shit pal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well 100% of those registered to vote could have done, if they couldnt be arsed then thats their problem, and who is to say that any of them wanted brexit or not, its more bad loser syndrome " No, no bad loser syndrome here. Just a wish for accuracy. 85% of those that voted is not 85% of the electorate when only 68% of those entitled to vote exercised their franchise. Of course those looking for validation (regardless of political affiliation) are more than willing to equate those that vote with those entitled to vote. Personally I would enact a law requiring everyone to exercise their franchise and add an extra box to all ballots so everyone could vote for 'NONE OF THEM'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
Hey Centaur I have a pound here. I'll keep 15% (thats 15p) you can have the other 85% of it but only after I first remove 32p...
How much are you getting Centaur? 85p or 58p?
Well 100% of those registered to vote could have done, if they couldnt be arsed then thats their problem, and who is to say that any of them wanted brexit or not, its more bad loser syndrome ".. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well 100% of those registered to vote could have done, if they couldnt be arsed then thats their problem, and who is to say that any of them wanted brexit or not, its more bad loser syndrome No, no bad loser syndrome here. Just a wish for accuracy. 85% of those that voted is not 85% of the electorate when only 68% of those entitled to vote exercised their franchise. Of course those looking for validation (regardless of political affiliation) are more than willing to equate those that vote with those entitled to vote. Personally I would enact a law requiring everyone to exercise their franchise and add an extra box to all ballots so everyone could vote for 'NONE OF THEM'." IF we could have a none of the above box then there is some merit in making everyone vote butI dont think the politicians would like the answer, and then of course there is the argument that surfaced after the leave vote that "some" shouldnt be allowed to vote at all, also so I dont recall the tory party complaining about TB getting in despite having LESS vote than they did, we have a system and right or wrong thats the way it is, perhaps those that are crying again because they lost should start a reasoned debate about changing it. I am not convinced that PR leads to good government anymore than FPTP does, politics is a mess, personally I put a lot of the blame on the media, there is far too much sensalisation instead of reporting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1500 new jobs in sedgfeild coming soon " You mean this? A £6.83m investment in one of the country’s most prestigious science parks could lead to 1,400 jobs being create | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
Hey Centaur I have a pound here. I'll keep 15% (thats 15p) you can have the other 85% of it but only after I first remove 32p...
How much are you getting Centaur? 85p or 58p?
"You knew full well I meant 85% of the electorate who bothered to vote. Those who don't bother to vote really can't complain about the results of elections. Besides playing your little maths game using your own numbers there, you are saying 58% of the total electorate including those who didn't bother to vote still voted for parties with Brexit manifestos. 58% of the total electorate is still a massive number in favour of Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"IF we could have a none of the above box then there is some merit in making everyone vote butI dont think the politicians would like the answer, and then of course there is the argument that surfaced after the leave vote that "some" shouldnt be allowed to vote at all, also so I dont recall the tory party complaining about TB getting in despite having LESS vote than they did, we have a system and right or wrong thats the way it is, perhaps those that are crying again because they lost should start a reasoned debate about changing it. I am not convinced that PR leads to good government anymore than FPTP does, politics is a mess, personally I put a lot of the blame on the media, there is far too much sensalisation instead of reporting" I don't see compulsory voting doing any harm to Australia, do you? As for your point about banning some from voting, there have always been those who would restrict democracy to those who met their standards. We have examples of that around the world and through history. Who shall we ban? Women? After all it is barely 100 years since women got the vote in the UK and I am sure there are misogynists who long for that time again... How about non land owners? I'm sure you would find many Tories (not tory voters) who would happily return to the time of the 'Rotten Boroughs'. After all it's so much easier to keep the lower orders in place when they have no representation... I find it strange regardless of historical time those who would most benefit having a more representative democracy are the ones who seem to be most opposed to progress and back the status quo...
No PR it will cause political chaos and weak government...
No votes for women, they are too feeble minded and emotional to be able to make rational choices and will cause political chaos and weak government if given the vote...
No votes for non land owners, they have no stake in the country and will cause political chaos and weak government if given the vote...
As for your comments about the leave vote I would counter by saying it was the referendum that was at fault not the electorate. We live in a country where if a union wishes to call a strike then they must hold a ballot (referendum) on the issue and to be able to proceed with strike action a majority of the popular vote must endorse the action and a minimum of 40% of those entitled to vote must vote for strike action. The question is why are the rules governing strikes stricter than those that governed the EU referendum? And why are our political leaders blaming the electorate for their failings? Could it be that some unscrupulous politicians saw an opportunity to restrict democracy and some of the less sophisticated in the population have run with it? (Just a thought...) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You knew full well I meant 85% of the electorate who bothered to vote. Those who don't bother to vote really can't complain about the results of elections. Besides playing your little maths game using your own numbers there, you are saying 58% of the total electorate including those who didn't bother to vote still voted for parties with Brexit manifestos. 58% of the total electorate is still a massive number in favour of Brexit. " I knew what you said... Yes I know exactly what you are saying, that is why I picked you up on it! And you know I know what you were trying to do. And you are still trying to do it, that is why you so casually ignore the 42% of the population that did not support a party that has said they respect the brexit vote. Of course in doing that you choose to ignore approximately the same number of people who voted for the tories... It's a bit like the 52% of the popular brexit vote refusing to acknowledge that in reality they only accounted for about 37% of the electorate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You knew full well I meant 85% of the electorate who bothered to vote. Those who don't bother to vote really can't complain about the results of elections. Besides playing your little maths game using your own numbers there, you are saying 58% of the total electorate including those who didn't bother to vote still voted for parties with Brexit manifestos. 58% of the total electorate is still a massive number in favour of Brexit. I knew what you said... Yes I know exactly what you are saying, that is why I picked you up on it! And you know I know what you were trying to do. And you are still trying to do it, that is why you so casually ignore the 42% of the population that did not support a party that has said they respect the brexit vote. Of course in doing that you choose to ignore approximately the same number of people who voted for the tories... It's a bit like the 52% of the popular brexit vote refusing to acknowledge that in reality they only accounted for about 37% of the electorate. " Well any vote not placed in the ballot counts for the winner | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"85% of the electorate voted for parties with Brexit manifestos In a single word... BULLSHIT! 85% of the electorate did not vote! Less than 70% of the Electorate voted (68.7% to be precise)! Admittedly 85% of them voted for a party that supported brexit but that is only 58.4% of the electorate. Not quite your 85% is it? 43% voted Conservative who had Brexit in their manifesto. 41% voted Labour who had Brexit in their manifesto. 1% voted Ukip who had Brexit in their manifesto. I'm sure you can do the maths.
Hey Centaur I have a pound here. I'll keep 15% (thats 15p) you can have the other 85% of it but only after I first remove 32p...
How much are you getting Centaur? 85p or 58p?
You knew full well I meant 85% of the electorate who bothered to vote. Those who don't bother to vote really can't complain about the results of elections. Besides playing your little maths game using your own numbers there, you are saying 58% of the total electorate including those who didn't bother to vote still voted for parties with Brexit manifestos. 58% of the total electorate is still a massive number in favour of Brexit. "or, but more accurately, 58% of those that voted voted for parties that were either against BREXIT all together or a form of BREXIT that recognised the importance of remaining in the Single Market and the Customs Union. We can play around with figures all day but the reality is is that a hard BREXIT is already dead and simply won't get through parliament. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And tesco announces were losing 1200 jobs...things are adding up now? " And that is relevant to BREXIT in what way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And tesco announces were losing 1200 jobs...things are adding up now? And that is relevant to BREXIT in what way?" Since the referendum the UK has gone from the fastest growing economy in the EU and G7 to the slowest in both. Inflation is now at its highest in years and consumer spending is down. And consumer spending is expected to be down for the next 3 quarters. Tesco obviously depends on consumer spending. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And tesco announces were losing 1200 jobs...things are adding up now? And that is relevant to BREXIT in what way? Since the referendum the UK has gone from the fastest growing economy in the EU and G7 to the slowest in both. Inflation is now at its highest in years and consumer spending is down. And consumer spending is expected to be down for the next 3 quarters. Tesco obviously depends on consumer spending." Don't over complicate it. BRECITers only have a very limited grasp of 'cause and effect'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And tesco announces were losing 1200 jobs...things are adding up now? And that is relevant to BREXIT in what way? Since the referendum the UK has gone from the fastest growing economy in the EU and G7 to the slowest in both. Inflation is now at its highest in years and consumer spending is down. And consumer spending is expected to be down for the next 3 quarters. Tesco obviously depends on consumer spending." So you aren't aware of Tesco financial problems then? And the fact that they have been on a drastic cost cutting exercise since Dave Lewis took the reigns in late 2014. He was renowned for it at Unilever, and has continued in his new role. It's part of Tesco business turnaround strategy. Steve Dresser, a retail analyst at Grocery Insight, said: “This is drastic but that’s what Dave does. He has clearly been planning this for some time and Tesco is still saying its cost base is too high. The market has changed beyond belief and Tesco needs to adapt. You can simplify operations a lot at head office but you can get things wrong.” They cut 9,000 jobs in 2015...5,000 in the UK and 4,000 overseas. Was that because of BREXIT? And they've been cutting costs ever since. Nothing to do with BREXIT, everything to do with previous mismanagement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well 100% of those registered to vote could have done, if they couldnt be arsed then thats their problem, and who is to say that any of them wanted brexit or not, its more bad loser syndrome No, no bad loser syndrome here. Just a wish for accuracy. 85% of those that voted is not 85% of the electorate when only 68% of those entitled to vote exercised their franchise. Of course those looking for validation (regardless of political affiliation) are more than willing to equate those that vote with those entitled to vote. Personally I would enact a law requiring everyone to exercise their franchise and add an extra box to all ballots so everyone could vote for 'NONE OF THEM'." Otherwise round them uq, put them in the gulags for a few years hard labour then have them shot eh comrade | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well 100% of those registered to vote could have done, if they couldnt be arsed then thats their problem, and who is to say that any of them wanted brexit or not, its more bad loser syndrome No, no bad loser syndrome here. Just a wish for accuracy. 85% of those that voted is not 85% of the electorate when only 68% of those entitled to vote exercised their franchise. Of course those looking for validation (regardless of political affiliation) are more than willing to equate those that vote with those entitled to vote. Personally I would enact a law requiring everyone to exercise their franchise and add an extra box to all ballots so everyone could vote for 'NONE OF THEM'. Otherwise round them uq, put them in the gulags for a few years hard labour then have them shot eh comrade" Australia has this system, yet no gulags or hard labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And tesco announces were losing 1200 jobs...things are adding up now? And that is relevant to BREXIT in what way? Since the referendum the UK has gone from the fastest growing economy in the EU and G7 to the slowest in both. Inflation is now at its highest in years and consumer spending is down. And consumer spending is expected to be down for the next 3 quarters. Tesco obviously depends on consumer spending." Well as Andrea Leadsome would say, perhaps consumers should be a bit more patriotic, and stop drinking tea and coffee and eating bananas etc. Then Tesco would have had such a price shock as the value of the pound tanked. If people just eat and drank British goods, maybe those people could have kept their jobs. See, its the fault of unpatriotic consumers, not Brexiters, no it's never the fault of Brexiters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well 100% of those registered to vote could have done, if they couldnt be arsed then thats their problem, and who is to say that any of them wanted brexit or not, its more bad loser syndrome No, no bad loser syndrome here. Just a wish for accuracy. 85% of those that voted is not 85% of the electorate when only 68% of those entitled to vote exercised their franchise. Of course those looking for validation (regardless of political affiliation) are more than willing to equate those that vote with those entitled to vote. Personally I would enact a law requiring everyone to exercise their franchise and add an extra box to all ballots so everyone could vote for 'NONE OF THEM'. Otherwise round them uq, put them in the gulags for a few years hard labour then have them shot eh comrade Australia has this system, yet no gulags or hard labour. " So what do they do about the guys in the outback? Oh ye, nowt, so pointless exercise | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well 100% of those registered to vote could have done, if they couldnt be arsed then thats their problem, and who is to say that any of them wanted brexit or not, its more bad loser syndrome No, no bad loser syndrome here. Just a wish for accuracy. 85% of those that voted is not 85% of the electorate when only 68% of those entitled to vote exercised their franchise. Of course those looking for validation (regardless of political affiliation) are more than willing to equate those that vote with those entitled to vote. Personally I would enact a law requiring everyone to exercise their franchise and add an extra box to all ballots so everyone could vote for 'NONE OF THEM'. Otherwise round them uq, put them in the gulags for a few years hard labour then have them shot eh comrade Australia has this system, yet no gulags or hard labour. So what do they do about the guys in the outback? Oh ye, nowt, so pointless exercise" What are you talking about?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And tesco announces were losing 1200 jobs...things are adding up now? And that is relevant to BREXIT in what way? Since the referendum the UK has gone from the fastest growing economy in the EU and G7 to the slowest in both. Inflation is now at its highest in years and consumer spending is down. And consumer spending is expected to be down for the next 3 quarters. Tesco obviously depends on consumer spending. Well as Andrea Leadsome would say, perhaps consumers should be a bit more patriotic, and stop drinking tea and coffee and eating bananas etc. Then Tesco would have had such a price shock as the value of the pound tanked. If people just eat and drank British goods, maybe those people could have kept their jobs. See, its the fault of unpatriotic consumers, not Brexiters, no it's never the fault of Brexiters." Tea from India and China will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with those countries. Coffee from South America will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with South American countries. Bananas will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with African countries and furthermore we'll be allowed to have bendy bananas instead of straight EU regulation bananas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"IF we could have a none of the above box then there is some merit in making everyone vote butI dont think the politicians would like the answer, and then of course there is the argument that surfaced after the leave vote that "some" shouldnt be allowed to vote at all, also so I dont recall the tory party complaining about TB getting in despite having LESS vote than they did, we have a system and right or wrong thats the way it is, perhaps those that are crying again because they lost should start a reasoned debate about changing it. I am not convinced that PR leads to good government anymore than FPTP does, politics is a mess, personally I put a lot of the blame on the media, there is far too much sensalisation instead of reporting I don't see compulsory voting doing any harm to Australia, do you? As for your point about banning some from voting, there have always been those who would restrict democracy to those who met their standards. We have examples of that around the world and through history. Who shall we ban? Women? After all it is barely 100 years since women got the vote in the UK and I am sure there are misogynists who long for that time again... How about non land owners? I'm sure you would find many Tories (not tory voters) who would happily return to the time of the 'Rotten Boroughs'. After all it's so much easier to keep the lower orders in place when they have no representation... I find it strange regardless of historical time those who would most benefit having a more representative democracy are the ones who seem to be most opposed to progress and back the status quo...
No PR it will cause political chaos and weak government...
No votes for women, they are too feeble minded and emotional to be able to make rational choices and will cause political chaos and weak government if given the vote...
No votes for non land owners, they have no stake in the country and will cause political chaos and weak government if given the vote...
As for your comments about the leave vote I would counter by saying it was the referendum that was at fault not the electorate. We live in a country where if a union wishes to call a strike then they must hold a ballot (referendum) on the issue and to be able to proceed with strike action a majority of the popular vote must endorse the action and a minimum of 40% of those entitled to vote must vote for strike action. The question is why are the rules governing strikes stricter than those that governed the EU referendum? And why are our political leaders blaming the electorate for their failings? Could it be that some unscrupulous politicians saw an opportunity to restrict democracy and some of the less sophisticated in the population have run with it? (Just a thought...) "It was Remainers who were saying uneducated people should not be allowed to vote after the EU referendum result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And tesco announces were losing 1200 jobs...things are adding up now? And that is relevant to BREXIT in what way? Since the referendum the UK has gone from the fastest growing economy in the EU and G7 to the slowest in both. Inflation is now at its highest in years and consumer spending is down. And consumer spending is expected to be down for the next 3 quarters. Tesco obviously depends on consumer spending. Well as Andrea Leadsome would say, perhaps consumers should be a bit more patriotic, and stop drinking tea and coffee and eating bananas etc. Then Tesco would have had such a price shock as the value of the pound tanked. If people just eat and drank British goods, maybe those people could have kept their jobs. See, its the fault of unpatriotic consumers, not Brexiters, no it's never the fault of Brexiters. Tea from India and China will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with those countries. Coffee from South America will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with South American countries. Bananas will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with African countries and furthermore we'll be allowed to have bendy bananas instead of straight EU regulation bananas. "Also children under 8 will soon be able to blow up ballons unsupervised after brexit. .Winning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Tea from India and China will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with those countries. Coffee from South America will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with South American countries. Bananas will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with African countries and furthermore we'll be allowed to have bendy bananas instead of straight EU regulation bananas. "In ten years you'll have a deal with China. Thats what the Chinese have said themselves. But Im curious, how are you going to get a better deal from China when you're offering less than the EU & UK combined? Since the Tories have been out negotiated by the DUP (£100 million per vote must be the most expensive 10 votes in history for a group that would have supported them anyway to keep Corbyn out) and theyve lost 2 or 3 times in head to heads with the EU team you're surely not hanging your hat on them to perform miracles. So Id love to hear you elaborate on whats going to mean a better deal for the UK....if youre able. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"IF we could have a none of the above box then there is some merit in making everyone vote butI dont think the politicians would like the answer, and then of course there is the argument that surfaced after the leave vote that "some" shouldnt be allowed to vote at all, also so I dont recall the tory party complaining about TB getting in despite having LESS vote than they did, we have a system and right or wrong thats the way it is, perhaps those that are crying again because they lost should start a reasoned debate about changing it. I am not convinced that PR leads to good government anymore than FPTP does, politics is a mess, personally I put a lot of the blame on the media, there is far too much sensalisation instead of reporting I don't see compulsory voting doing any harm to Australia, do you? As for your point about banning some from voting, there have always been those who would restrict democracy to those who met their standards. We have examples of that around the world and through history. Who shall we ban? Women? After all it is barely 100 years since women got the vote in the UK and I am sure there are misogynists who long for that time again... How about non land owners? I'm sure you would find many Tories (not tory voters) who would happily return to the time of the 'Rotten Boroughs'. After all it's so much easier to keep the lower orders in place when they have no representation... I find it strange regardless of historical time those who would most benefit having a more representative democracy are the ones who seem to be most opposed to progress and back the status quo...
No PR it will cause political chaos and weak government...
No votes for women, they are too feeble minded and emotional to be able to make rational choices and will cause political chaos and weak government if given the vote...
No votes for non land owners, they have no stake in the country and will cause political chaos and weak government if given the vote...
As for your comments about the leave vote I would counter by saying it was the referendum that was at fault not the electorate. We live in a country where if a union wishes to call a strike then they must hold a ballot (referendum) on the issue and to be able to proceed with strike action a majority of the popular vote must endorse the action and a minimum of 40% of those entitled to vote must vote for strike action. The question is why are the rules governing strikes stricter than those that governed the EU referendum? And why are our political leaders blaming the electorate for their failings? Could it be that some unscrupulous politicians saw an opportunity to restrict democracy and some of the less sophisticated in the population have run with it? (Just a thought...)
It was Remainers who were saying uneducated people should not be allowed to vote after the EU referendum result. "I dunno, I bet there are a lot of uneducated people that voted to leave because they thought the EU mandated straight bananas
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think UK citizens in mainland Europe should have been allowed to vote in the referendum, especially as they're being used as part of the negotiations. Not yo mention that the referendum had potentially massive ramifications for them." As I understand it if they had lived and been registered to vote in the UK 15 years or less before the referendum, they could. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And tesco announces were losing 1200 jobs...things are adding up now? And that is relevant to BREXIT in what way? Since the referendum the UK has gone from the fastest growing economy in the EU and G7 to the slowest in both. Inflation is now at its highest in years and consumer spending is down. And consumer spending is expected to be down for the next 3 quarters. Tesco obviously depends on consumer spending. Well as Andrea Leadsome would say, perhaps consumers should be a bit more patriotic, and stop drinking tea and coffee and eating bananas etc. Then Tesco would have had such a price shock as the value of the pound tanked. If people just eat and drank British goods, maybe those people could have kept their jobs. See, its the fault of unpatriotic consumers, not Brexiters, no it's never the fault of Brexiters. Tea from India and China will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with those countries. Coffee from South America will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with South American countries. Bananas will become cheaper after Brexit as we sign new trade deals with African countries and furthermore we'll be allowed to have bendy bananas instead of straight EU regulation bananas. "Random fact for you. Did you know we import most of our tea from Kenya? And they we import more tea from the Netherlands than we do from China? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
