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 |  |
 *
---
We can all agree (I hope!) that, whether voted leave or remain, we all want the best for our country and that the difference in how we voted is because we see things from a different perspective.
I hope that most of us will also agree that when we were asked to vote (*compared to now*) very few people knew in detail what the customs union was or what the EEA was or what the exact workings of the EU were.
My question is this (and it's a two-part one):
1. Who should "approve" the final deal? The government only? The parliament as a whole? Or should *we* be asked to vote once we have all the details and we know exactly what we're getting? (*please note*: I'm *not* talking about a second referendum on in or out but purely a vote on whether we are happy with what the government has managed to negotiate -in which case, move forward and implement it- or we're not happy and we'd like them to negotiate a different/modified deal).
2. Would you support such a "public" vote? If yes, why? If no, why?
----
Thank you in advance for your best efforts in trying to keep things civil and have a constructive debate | |||
| 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 |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out " Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do 
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in."Exactly doing business deals, how many civil servants or politicians have experience in that, of course you need the best ones, ones that have risen from little and made a success from small beginnings | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in.
Exactly doing business deals, how many civil servants or politicians have experience in that, of course you need the best ones, ones that have risen from little and made a success from small beginnings"Trade deals and border deals arent the same as business deals. The guy who has run Toys R Us into the ground is also the same guy that led the turnaround of Dominos pizza. Everyone has wins and losses and the civil service at least have experience and knowledge of the areas that are being negotiated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in.
Exactly doing business deals, how many civil servants or politicians have experience in that, of course you need the best ones, ones that have risen from little and made a success from small beginnings
Trade deals and border deals arent the same as business deals.
The guy who has run Toys R Us into the ground is also the same guy that led the turnaround of Dominos pizza. Everyone has wins and losses and the civil service at least have experience and knowledge of the areas that are being negotiated."Yet we hear from remainers all the time that the uk civil servants have no experience of doing trade deals, now you are saying they have  .
The only trade deal we need is free trade, that is what businesses ALL round europe want, its to the benefit of all, its the euro politicians that want tariffs imposed to deter others from leaving the EU, if free trade in the EU has been so good then why does anyone want to change it, except for political reasons of course, the irish border is just being used by those who dont want us to leave as an excuse to try and stop us, we have freedom of movement now anywhere in europe, yet try getting into france or even ireland from the uk or vice versa without a passport, why should going north to south be any different? apart of course because some want to make life difficult for us to leave | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in.
Exactly doing business deals, how many civil servants or politicians have experience in that, of course you need the best ones, ones that have risen from little and made a success from small beginnings"The civil service to business deals day in day out. A close family friend has specialised in procurement for the civil service for decades, his big ticket items are ships, not paperclips. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in.
Exactly doing business deals, how many civil servants or politicians have experience in that, of course you need the best ones, ones that have risen from little and made a success from small beginnings
Trade deals and border deals arent the same as business deals.
The guy who has run Toys R Us into the ground is also the same guy that led the turnaround of Dominos pizza. Everyone has wins and losses and the civil service at least have experience and knowledge of the areas that are being negotiated.
Yet we hear from remainers all the time that the uk civil servants have no experience of doing trade deals, now you are saying they have
.
The only trade deal we need is free trade, that is what businesses ALL round europe want, its to the benefit of all, its the euro politicians that want tariffs imposed to deter others from leaving the EU, if free trade in the EU has been so good then why does anyone want to change it, except for political reasons of course, the irish border is just being used by those who dont want us to leave as an excuse to try and stop us, we have freedom of movement now anywhere in europe, yet try getting into france or even ireland from the uk or vice versa without a passport, why should going north to south be any different? apart of course because some want to make life difficult for us to leave"Dear, oh dear. This is 2 replies in a row where you've failed to read what youre replying to. First the car thread now this. I said civil servants have knowledge on the areas being negotiated, I never said they had experience in trade deals. Do try and improve your reading skills, its tiresome to have to explain things to you twice (or will it be 3 times or 4 times by the time youve replied?) The EU is not imposing tariffs at all. The UK is leaving and that means reverting to WTO terms, the EU is negotiating to avoid that. If theres an easy solution to the Northern Ireland situation please dont leave us hanging, we're dying to hear it. Just bear in mind that unless youre leaving the WTO and plan to convince the EU to also leave then you have to abide by its rules which state that in the absence of a free trade agreement there must be a customs border. Ill wait for your words of enlightment since you have such a deep and profound understanding of the situation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dear, oh dear. This is 2 replies in a row where you've failed to read what youre replying to. First the car thread now this. I said civil servants have knowledge on the areas being negotiated, I never said they had experience in trade deals. Do try and improve your reading skills, its tiresome to have to explain things to you twice (or will it be 3 times or 4 times by the time youve replied?) The EU is not imposing tariffs at all. The UK is leaving and that means reverting to WTO terms, the EU is negotiating to avoid that. If theres an easy solution to the Northern Ireland situation please dont leave us hanging, we're dying to hear it. Just bear in mind that unless youre leaving the WTO and plan to convince the EU to also leave then you have to abide by its rules which state that in the absence of a free trade agreement there must be a customs border. Ill wait for your words of enlightment since you have such a deep and profound understanding of the situation "Seeing as we have never left the EU before what experience have our civil servants got in that ? What experience are you therefore talking about, perhaps you need to understand what youre posting you quote one thing and get hauled up about it and then deny you said it, strangely it takes both sides to negotiate any deal Tariffs wont be of any benefit to either side, the problem is the EU would sooner hurt their own businesses and citizens rather than modernise their political ideal. AS for the irish border of course there will have to be some sort of border, unless of course we have a free trade deal and allow free movement of people, both of which at the moment look unlikely for political reasons. It appears that a few people who have never accepted the GFA wish to use brexit as an excuse to up the ante. The Irish gov are desparate not to lose access to the uk market tariff free and are playing a dangerous game by playing up the risk of the troubles returning. The fact is that there is going to be a border between two different countries and that means unless both sides just turn a blind eye to people or goods crossing some form of control will have to be used. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in.
Exactly doing business deals, how many civil servants or politicians have experience in that, of course you need the best ones, ones that have risen from little and made a success from small beginnings
The civil service to business deals day in day out. A close family friend has specialised in procurement for the civil service for decades, his big ticket items are ships, not paperclips.
"Ah yes the great civil service buying skills where they pay £20 for a light bulb that you can buy for £1 in a DIY store, lets not forget all the IT systems they buy that cost billions but never work let alone each and every scheme/project that never comes in on budget or time, I'm sure that there are some who work as buyers that do a good job but as an organisation Ive never seen a public body get value for money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah yes the great civil service buying skills where they pay £20 for a light bulb that you can buy for £1 in a DIY store, lets not forget all the IT systems they buy that cost billions but never work let alone each and every scheme/project that never comes in on budget or time, I'm sure that there are some who work as buyers that do a good job but as an organisation Ive never seen a public body get value for money" Funny how civil servants get blamed for the pork ministers dole out to their mates in 'business' and then find themselves being offered jobs they are not qualified to do when kicked out of office | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in.
Exactly doing business deals, how many civil servants or politicians have experience in that, of course you need the best ones, ones that have risen from little and made a success from small beginnings
The civil service to business deals day in day out. A close family friend has specialised in procurement for the civil service for decades, his big ticket items are ships, not paperclips.
Ah yes the great civil service buying skills where they pay £20 for a light bulb that you can buy for £1 in a DIY store, lets not forget all the IT systems they buy that cost billions but never work let alone each and every scheme/project that never comes in on budget or time, I'm sure that there are some who work as buyers that do a good job but as an organisation Ive never seen a public body get value for money"Yeah, my mistake, you are totally right, we perhaps we should ask a business like TSB to procure our IT systems? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it should all be left to the Government now, whatever deal if any they agree on with the EU. The country was asked to vote on something so complicated with a simple yes or no vote that to possibly avoid a cluster fuck of this kind ever again massive decisions need to be left to people in government that actually understand what the fuck it's all about." That's grand if they did know what they were doing or could even agree on what they are trying to do , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in.
Exactly doing business deals, how many civil servants or politicians have experience in that, of course you need the best ones, ones that have risen from little and made a success from small beginnings
The civil service to business deals day in day out. A close family friend has specialised in procurement for the civil service for decades, his big ticket items are ships, not paperclips.
Ah yes the great civil service buying skills where they pay £20 for a light bulb that you can buy for £1 in a DIY store, lets not forget all the IT systems they buy that cost billions but never work let alone each and every scheme/project that never comes in on budget or time, I'm sure that there are some who work as buyers that do a good job but as an organisation Ive never seen a public body get value for money
Yeah, my mistake, you are totally right, we perhaps we should ask a business like TSB to procure our IT systems? "I suppose they couldn't do much worse than the recent NHS IT debacle. How much did that cost? I've lost count, but it was billions on a system that didn't work.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future." Well said  . Unfortunately some sore losers will never shut up I'm afraid , they will never accept it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future." Classic propaganda technique, tried and tested by populists over many generations. Create an enemy at the door and denounce those who do not rally behind the flag as unpatriotic and unworthy. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anyone out there trying to "punish" the UK. And you'll have to show me the evidence that the "whole world wants to live in the UK". The 3 million Brits living in EU countries obviously don't. But they'll soon have to if your wish comes true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future. Classic propaganda technique, tried and tested by populists over many generations. Create an enemy at the door and denounce those who do not rally behind the flag as unpatriotic and unworthy. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anyone out there trying to "punish" the UK. And you'll have to show me the evidence that the "whole world wants to live in the UK". The 3 million Brits living in EU countries obviously don't. But they'll soon have to if your wish comes true. " There are 1.3M Brits living in elsewhere in the EU, not 3 Million. This is 0.0026% of the EU population https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ There are 3.7 Million EU citizens living in the UK, or 6% of the UK population. https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future. Classic propaganda technique, tried and tested by populists over many generations. Create an enemy at the door and denounce those who do not rally behind the flag as unpatriotic and unworthy. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anyone out there trying to "punish" the UK. And you'll have to show me the evidence that the "whole world wants to live in the UK". The 3 million Brits living in EU countries obviously don't. But they'll soon have to if your wish comes true. There are 1.3M Brits living in elsewhere in the EU, not 3 Million. This is 0.0026% of the EU population https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ There are 3.7 Million EU citizens living in the UK, or 6% of the UK population. https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/" Those numbers dont include very large numbers of Brits who split their time between the UK and other EU countries who stand to lose out if we decide to flounce out of the EU like some stroppy teenager. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah, my mistake, you are totally right, we perhaps we should ask a business like TSB to procure our IT systems? " Yes that is one example of cock ups by private businesses and there are others, some private businesses are very poorly run, BT, network rail, the water companies and electric suppliers to name a few, you may think of a connection between those, but to answer your point any government IT system that I have had the misfortune to have to interact with is usually a total nightmare and they cost many millions and yet often never work, it could be down to ministers not having a clear idea what they are trying to deliver it could be clueless civil servants or it could be IT companies, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My thinking behind the OP was that, judging by the way things are going, we might end up half in-half out and, most importantly in my view, being rule takers but not rule makers. I think no one, no matter how they voted, would be happy with that. I, as a remainer, would absolutely hate being in any kind of situation, domestic or otherwise, where I have to accept rules but have no hand in setting them, even in the smallest way, especially when the starting point meant that we could even veto things. I don't know... This whole situation is a shambles. I see your points about if it was put to the people again, it'd probably be a mess, since the first time around, when it was just "yes" or "no", was a mess too, if the situation we're in now is anything to go by. I just don't think I can trust those in parliament to sort out this mess and, consequently, the divisions (and damage/uncertainty) continue for many years to come." I agree, half measures will be the worse of all worlds, we need to pay up what we owe and leave and then start again as friends and business partners for the benefit of all sides | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a 2nd referendum, cos you wouldnt get a house without a 2nd opinion, brexiters are deluded if they they think they will get a good deal lol. " There won't be a 2nd referendum where anyone has a choice to Remain. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The foreign office minister Alan Duncan said yesterday that there could be a referendum on whether the country accepts Theresa May's negotiated deal or to leave with No Deal. If Theresa May's deal keeps us in the customs union or the single market then personally I'd vote for No Deal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a 2nd referendum, cos you wouldnt get a house without a 2nd opinion, brexiters are deluded if they they think they will get a good deal lol. There won't be a 2nd referendum where anyone has a choice to Remain. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The foreign office minister Alan Duncan said yesterday that there could be a referendum on whether the country accepts Theresa May's negotiated deal or to leave with No Deal. If Theresa May's deal keeps us in the customs union or the single market then personally I'd vote for No Deal. " So would I ! I would be happy with a second vote for deal or no deal as this would make the EU want to offer us a better deal anyways if they new we could just stick two fingers up ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
) and I thanked her afterwards for coming along to show her support despite her long day in parliament. She gave me her card and asked me to email her regarding something we were talking about and I thought "ok! Here's my in!" so I asked her: "what the hell is happening with Brexit?!" to which she shrugged her shoulders, rolled her eyes and said "that's a good question!". And she is a staunch brexiteer! I mean, if the brexiteers in parliament aren't confident/happy with how things are going and the remainers feel the same way, how are we, the public, supposed to trust them and put our faith in them to come up with the goods?! They seem more clueless than we are! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future. Classic propaganda technique, tried and tested by populists over many generations. Create an enemy at the door and denounce those who do not rally behind the flag as unpatriotic and unworthy. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anyone out there trying to "punish" the UK. And you'll have to show me the evidence that the "whole world wants to live in the UK". The 3 million Brits living in EU countries obviously don't. But they'll soon have to if your wish comes true. There are 1.3M Brits living in elsewhere in the EU, not 3 Million. This is 0.0026% of the EU population https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ There are 3.7 Million EU citizens living in the UK, or 6% of the UK population. https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ Those numbers dont include very large numbers of Brits who split their time between the UK and other EU countries who stand to lose out if we decide to flounce out of the EU like some stroppy teenager." So your contention is that 1.3 Million uk citizens live in the EU, but another 1.7 Million have long holidays in the EU, and that counts as them living in the EU! Amd how long does someone have to be away from the UK for it to count as them living elsewhere? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a 2nd referendum, cos you wouldnt get a house without a 2nd opinion, brexiters are deluded if they they think they will get a good deal lol. There won't be a 2nd referendum where anyone has a choice to Remain. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The foreign office minister Alan Duncan said yesterday that there could be a referendum on whether the country accepts Theresa May's negotiated deal or to leave with No Deal. If Theresa May's deal keeps us in the customs union or the single market then personally I'd vote for No Deal. " But Brexit means Brexit right? Red white and blue Brexit, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I met Theresa Villiers a couple of days ago (the day of PMQs actually) at a local community meeting (she's my local MP unfortunately ) and I thanked her afterwards for coming along to show her support despite her long day in parliament. She gave me her card and asked me to email her regarding something we were talking about and I thought "ok! Here's my in!" so I asked her: "what the hell is happening with Brexit?!" to which she shrugged her shoulders, rolled her eyes and said "that's a good question!". And she is a staunch brexiteer! I mean, if the brexiteers in parliament aren't confident/happy with how things are going and the remainers feel the same way, how are we, the public, supposed to trust them and put our faith in them to come up with the goods?! They seem more clueless than we are!"BoJo is headline news on the BBC today for saying how badly negotiations were going, the same article said that DD had threatened to quit, and that brexiters weren't going to be happy with Brexit! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I met Theresa Villiers a couple of days ago (the day of PMQs actually) at a local community meeting (she's my local MP unfortunately ) and I thanked her afterwards for coming along to show her support despite her long day in parliament. She gave me her card and asked me to email her regarding something we were talking about and I thought "ok! Here's my in!" so I asked her: "what the hell is happening with Brexit?!" to which she shrugged her shoulders, rolled her eyes and said "that's a good question!". And she is a staunch brexiteer! I mean, if the brexiteers in parliament aren't confident/happy with how things are going and the remainers feel the same way, how are we, the public, supposed to trust them and put our faith in them to come up with the goods?! They seem more clueless than we are!
BoJo is headline news on the BBC today for saying how badly negotiations were going, the same article said that DD had threatened to quit, and that brexiters weren't going to be happy with Brexit! "Tbh, I think that Johnson is (very unashamedly) positioning himself to have first dibs for the job once TM goes and he's clearly setting her up to fail (because, let's be honest, if she does well in the negotiations, there'll be no vacancy for the top job for a few years). So, I'm pretty sure he knew (or, at least, was hoping) that he was being recorded when he said that we needed someone like Trump to "go all in" (hmm..I wonder who could he have meant that behaves like Trump in uk politics! ) thus, undermining TM because supporting her doesn't exactly serve his agenda. He's playing a very dangerous game and he's risking everyone's best interest (especially right now, in the middle of the most difficult and time sensitive period) by putting his personal ambitions ahead of everything else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future. Classic propaganda technique, tried and tested by populists over many generations. Create an enemy at the door and denounce those who do not rally behind the flag as unpatriotic and unworthy. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anyone out there trying to "punish" the UK. And you'll have to show me the evidence that the "whole world wants to live in the UK". The 3 million Brits living in EU countries obviously don't. But they'll soon have to if your wish comes true. There are 1.3M Brits living in elsewhere in the EU, not 3 Million. This is 0.0026% of the EU population https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ There are 3.7 Million EU citizens living in the UK, or 6% of the UK population. https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ Those numbers dont include very large numbers of Brits who split their time between the UK and other EU countries who stand to lose out if we decide to flounce out of the EU like some stroppy teenager. So your contention is that 1.3 Million uk citizens live in the EU, but another 1.7 Million have long holidays in the EU, and that counts as them living in the EU! Amd how long does someone have to be away from the UK for it to count as them living elsewhere? " My contention is that there are large numbers who split their time approximately 50/50 between here and Spain for example | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future. Classic propaganda technique, tried and tested by populists over many generations. Create an enemy at the door and denounce those who do not rally behind the flag as unpatriotic and unworthy. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anyone out there trying to "punish" the UK. And you'll have to show me the evidence that the "whole world wants to live in the UK". The 3 million Brits living in EU countries obviously don't. But they'll soon have to if your wish comes true. There are 1.3M Brits living in elsewhere in the EU, not 3 Million. This is 0.0026% of the EU population https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ There are 3.7 Million EU citizens living in the UK, or 6% of the UK population. https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ Those numbers dont include very large numbers of Brits who split their time between the UK and other EU countries who stand to lose out if we decide to flounce out of the EU like some stroppy teenager. So your contention is that 1.3 Million uk citizens live in the EU, but another 1.7 Million have long holidays in the EU, and that counts as them living in the EU! Amd how long does someone have to be away from the UK for it to count as them living elsewhere? My contention is that there are large numbers who split their time approximately 50/50 between here and Spain for example" 1.7 Million? Really? And they have emigrated to the EU? They don't live in the UK? What source have you got to substantiate this 1.7 Million? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future. Classic propaganda technique, tried and tested by populists over many generations. Create an enemy at the door and denounce those who do not rally behind the flag as unpatriotic and unworthy. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anyone out there trying to "punish" the UK. And you'll have to show me the evidence that the "whole world wants to live in the UK". The 3 million Brits living in EU countries obviously don't. But they'll soon have to if your wish comes true. There are 1.3M Brits living in elsewhere in the EU, not 3 Million. This is 0.0026% of the EU population https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ There are 3.7 Million EU citizens living in the UK, or 6% of the UK population. https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ Those numbers dont include very large numbers of Brits who split their time between the UK and other EU countries who stand to lose out if we decide to flounce out of the EU like some stroppy teenager. So your contention is that 1.3 Million uk citizens live in the EU, but another 1.7 Million have long holidays in the EU, and that counts as them living in the EU! Amd how long does someone have to be away from the UK for it to count as them living elsewhere? My contention is that there are large numbers who split their time approximately 50/50 between here and Spain for example 1.7 Million? Really? And they have emigrated to the EU? They don't live in the UK? What source have you got to substantiate this 1.7 Million?" Since when have brexiters cared about facts? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future. Classic propaganda technique, tried and tested by populists over many generations. Create an enemy at the door and denounce those who do not rally behind the flag as unpatriotic and unworthy. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anyone out there trying to "punish" the UK. And you'll have to show me the evidence that the "whole world wants to live in the UK". The 3 million Brits living in EU countries obviously don't. But they'll soon have to if your wish comes true. There are 1.3M Brits living in elsewhere in the EU, not 3 Million. This is 0.0026% of the EU population https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ There are 3.7 Million EU citizens living in the UK, or 6% of the UK population. https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ Those numbers dont include very large numbers of Brits who split their time between the UK and other EU countries who stand to lose out if we decide to flounce out of the EU like some stroppy teenager. So your contention is that 1.3 Million uk citizens live in the EU, but another 1.7 Million have long holidays in the EU, and that counts as them living in the EU! Amd how long does someone have to be away from the UK for it to count as them living elsewhere? My contention is that there are large numbers who split their time approximately 50/50 between here and Spain for example 1.7 Million? Really? And they have emigrated to the EU? They don't live in the UK? What source have you got to substantiate this 1.7 Million?" I didnt mention 1.7m: I didnt mention a figure at all. Are you saying that there arent people who split their time between 2 countries???? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a 2nd referendum, cos you wouldnt get a house without a 2nd opinion, brexiters are deluded if they they think they will get a good deal lol. There won't be a 2nd referendum where anyone has a choice to Remain. The country already made its decision to leave in 2016. The foreign office minister Alan Duncan said yesterday that there could be a referendum on whether the country accepts Theresa May's negotiated deal or to leave with No Deal. If Theresa May's deal keeps us in the customs union or the single market then personally I'd vote for No Deal. " This is an important point. A vote on the deal would have only one outcome. People who want to remain will vote “no”, and leavers who think the deal isn’t mental enough, will vote “no”. So there is no way the government will allow it to go to a vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever deal if any, is agreed is it, take it or leave it, we have triggered art50 so we are leaving, there is no going back to what we had before,we would in effect be new members again, thus no continued rebate just more and more cash to stump up, most likely having to take the euro too. If anyone really believes that if we say we wont be accepting the deal deal that the EU will argee to change anything is deluded, and of course all the rest of the EU have to agree too, far better off just getting agreement on the leaving terms( which have been generally agreed) and move on to a new deal seperately. If EVERYONE behaves like adults in the best interests of ALL the citizens of europe then it can be done. If either side wants to play silly buggers then it will end badly for BOTH sides. Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out " Just not true, we can revoke Art50 i.e. intention to leave, right up until the deadline - not after though of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Best we just walk away and then start to talk and see what happens. There are winners and losers whatever happens but it's no to a new vote from us as we have already had the vote and we voted to leave Europe and we new what we were voting for which was to LEAVE EUROPE AND NOT STAY HALF IN AND HALF OUT. PEOPLE WHO VOTED REMAIN DIDN'T VOTE TO HALF REMAIN. START GETTING BEHIND THIS FANTASTIC COUNTRY that the whole world wants to live in and join together like Brits do when abused by other countries like Europe trying to punish us and get on with leaving together. I say stuff them. Especially blair and soros (tossers not relevant to this country anymore) regardless of how much foreign money they spend on us staying so come on and be happy and look forward to our new fantastic future. Classic propaganda technique, tried and tested by populists over many generations. Create an enemy at the door and denounce those who do not rally behind the flag as unpatriotic and unworthy. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anyone out there trying to "punish" the UK. And you'll have to show me the evidence that the "whole world wants to live in the UK". The 3 million Brits living in EU countries obviously don't. But they'll soon have to if your wish comes true. There are 1.3M Brits living in elsewhere in the EU, not 3 Million. This is 0.0026% of the EU population https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ There are 3.7 Million EU citizens living in the UK, or 6% of the UK population. https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ Those numbers dont include very large numbers of Brits who split their time between the UK and other EU countries who stand to lose out if we decide to flounce out of the EU like some stroppy teenager. So your contention is that 1.3 Million uk citizens live in the EU, but another 1.7 Million have long holidays in the EU, and that counts as them living in the EU! Amd how long does someone have to be away from the UK for it to count as them living elsewhere? My contention is that there are large numbers who split their time approximately 50/50 between here and Spain for example 1.7 Million? Really? And they have emigrated to the EU? They don't live in the UK? What source have you got to substantiate this 1.7 Million? I didnt mention 1.7m: I didnt mention a figure at all. Are you saying that there arent people who split their time between 2 countries????" There are....but not 1.7 Million of them! If you read the posts, I responded to the person who said there are 3 Million Brits living in the EU. There aren't, there are 1.3 Million. So where are the other 1.7 Million that are living in the EU? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever deal if any, is agreed is it, take it or leave it, we have triggered art50 so we are leaving, there is no going back to what we had before,we would in effect be new members again, thus no continued rebate just more and more cash to stump up, most likely having to take the euro too. If anyone really believes that if we say we wont be accepting the deal deal that the EU will argee to change anything is deluded, and of course all the rest of the EU have to agree too, far better off just getting agreement on the leaving terms( which have been generally agreed) and move on to a new deal seperately. If EVERYONE behaves like adults in the best interests of ALL the citizens of europe then it can be done. If either side wants to play silly buggers then it will end badly for BOTH sides. Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Just not true, we can revoke Art50 i.e. intention to leave, right up until the deadline - not after though of course." As no one has used art 50 before there is doubt about whether it cant be withdrawn, it would no doubt end up in the eu court, would the EU accept us withdrawing it? perhaps as they want our cash, but you can be certain they would extract a high price. No UK government would survive trying to go against the wishes of the public vote, IF there is another vote then the choice will be deal or no deal not leave or stay | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I will never get the point to people being happy to vote for a blank cheque but not wanting a vote on the actual specifics..... but hey that seems to be a position a lot of the 52% the hill they are happy to die upon.....!!!! i've never been in a position where biting off your nose to spite your face was ever a positive place to be...... and on our own heads be it.... but if it all goes tits up, i am sure the more vocal elements of the 52% won't be as vocal as they are now.... because "oops" isn't really going to cut it!!! i've lost any faith in people actually making any sensible decisions... it just a case of whether we go over the cliff "lemmings style".... or more spectactularly like the hardliners want as in thelma and louise!!!!!" So what in your view would a vote be on, to accept a deal or leave without one or to ask to stay in? No government would survive if they said go or stay and lost the vote, they would have to campaign for a leave vote on the deal the have worked on, the uk would be in total turmoil, both main parties could tear themselves apart over the issue | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just not true, we can revoke Art50 i.e. intention to leave, right up until the deadline - not after though of course." The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Article 50 cannot be withdrawn and the UK leaves the EU next year. As for a vote on the tems of withdrawal any vote would be to accept the terms or leave on no deal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say." There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. " I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say." And thankfully for their futures we are leaving. My 16 year old wants to leave. Why? Because he listens to his dad. And he still has to be in for 10 o’clock
Clutching at straws to change the rules ain’t gonna make any difference. Most people now just want it over and OUT | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say." An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear! "Its called Dyslexia. But your jibe comes as no suprise. No what so ever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear!
Its called Dyslexia. But your jibe comes as no suprise. No what so ever."Glad your not teaching my kids!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear!
Its called Dyslexia. But your jibe comes as no suprise. No what so ever.
Glad your not teaching my kids! "Of course not. They would learn to have a mind of thier own and not follow blindly over cliffs! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear!
Its called Dyslexia. But your jibe comes as no suprise. No what so ever.
Glad your not teaching my kids!
Of course not. They would learn to have a mind of thier own and not follow blindly over cliffs!"No, nothing personal but I want my children to have the best education possible. I think having a teacher who can't spell would put them at a disadvantage. I always warn them about keeping away from cliffs so no worries there and all kids have a mind of their own! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear!
Its called Dyslexia. But your jibe comes as no suprise. No what so ever.
Glad your not teaching my kids!
Of course not. They would learn to have a mind of thier own and not follow blindly over cliffs!
No, nothing personal but I want my children to have the best education possible. I think having a teacher who can't spell would put them at a disadvantage. I always warn them about keeping away from cliffs so no worries there and all kids have a mind of their own! ""Nothing Personal"!?!??! I hope your children develope enlighteded minds free from Bigotry. Your blocked! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear!
Its called Dyslexia. But your jibe comes as no suprise. No what so ever.
Glad your not teaching my kids!
Of course not. They would learn to have a mind of thier own and not follow blindly over cliffs!
No, nothing personal but I want my children to have the best education possible. I think having a teacher who can't spell would put them at a disadvantage. I always warn them about keeping away from cliffs so no worries there and all kids have a mind of their own!
"Nothing Personal"!?!??!
I hope your children develope enlighteded minds free from Bigotry.
Your blocked!"Can't spell and a prat! Blocked, we would never meet you anyway! Go and cry to your mommy you big baby! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say." How many 16 and 17 year olds do you teach? You can't even spell! We've got two secondary school teachers amongst our children....they both say there is no way that 16 or 17 year olds shoukd be allowed anywhere near voting booths. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear!
Its called Dyslexia. But your jibe comes as no suprise. No what so ever.
Glad your not teaching my kids!
Of course not. They would learn to have a mind of thier own and not follow blindly over cliffs!
No, nothing personal but I want my children to have the best education possible. I think having a teacher who can't spell would put them at a disadvantage. I always warn them about keeping away from cliffs so no worries there and all kids have a mind of their own!
"Nothing Personal"!?!??!
I hope your children develope enlighteded minds free from Bigotry.
Your blocked!"It's You're not Your | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. How many 16 and 17 year olds do you teach? You can't even spell! We've got two secondary school teachers amongst our children....they both say there is no way that 16 or 17 year olds shoukd be allowed anywhere near voting booths." I would be interested to know how he is able to correct spelling mistakes in pupil's written work when he can't spell himself!? No wonder so many youngsters turn up bearly able to read and write at the FE college I work at when you have teachers like him! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear!
Its called Dyslexia. But your jibe comes as no suprise. No what so ever.
Glad your not teaching my kids! "Since you seem to want to criticise, can I point out that it's you're not your? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. How many 16 and 17 year olds do you teach? You can't even spell! We've got two secondary school teachers amongst our children....they both say there is no way that 16 or 17 year olds shoukd be allowed anywhere near voting booths. I would be interested to know how he is able to correct spelling mistakes in pupil's written work when he can't spell himself!? No wonder so many youngsters turn up bearly able to read and write at the FE college I work at when you have teachers like him! "I hope taking the piss out of dyslexics isn't the norm at the college where you work.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. How many 16 and 17 year olds do you teach? You can't even spell! We've got two secondary school teachers amongst our children....they both say there is no way that 16 or 17 year olds shoukd be allowed anywhere near voting booths. I would be interested to know how he is able to correct spelling mistakes in pupil's written work when he can't spell himself!? No wonder so many youngsters turn up bearly able to read and write at the FE college I work at when you have teachers like him!
I hope taking the piss out of dyslexics isn't the norm at the college where you work...."It's not taking the piss, it's asking a valid question! Spelling needs to be corrected on all written work no matter what subject it is, so how does he do it when he can't spell himself!? Perhaps you can answer for him as he seems to have gone in to hiding! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. I know of no such rulling by the sepream court. The Miller Ruling only Declared Parlement Sovrign and required to vote on triggering A50. Parliement can return Siverignty to the people. As for 16 and 17 year olds. I wonder where your evidance is. As an Education oriffessional with an MA i di not recognise fully your view. Risk taking behaviousers do not stretch to politics and if it did it would make them more likely to leave as the much riskier option. The Scotish independance referendum (large majority of 16 & 17 yr olds voted No) proves they can handle the vote in a mature manor. As to your comments about denieing them the vote, cant think of a better reason to give them a vote. Their future there say. An education professional who can't spell, what is the world coming to! Dear oh dear!
Its called Dyslexia. But your jibe comes as no suprise. No what so ever.
Glad your not teaching my kids!
Since you seem to want to criticise, can I point out that it's you're not your?"Everyone makes mistakes! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Running away?! Lol! More like spending my time with the hot wee lassy in a club. Much better use of my time. Oh and spell checkers don't give as good a blow job as she does!" Best start using the spell checker all the time and I would be interested to know how you use it on hand written work!? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, now that we've all insulted each other and felt better for ourselves by belittling others, how about we go back to being adults and semi-civil? With regards to a public vote on the final deal, I have a feeling it'd never get to that anyway because, the way things are going, we'll be lucky if parliament (and especially the government) agrees on anything amongst themselves in order to get to a point where a deal is actually agreed. Maybe we should all resign ourselves to the fact that the circle cannot be squared and be done with it. We can then blame each other for not getting our way. I, for one, will be going after each and every Brexiteer on here to collect *from them* the money I lose as a result of Brexit. Unless JRM and Banks open a fund to compensate the whole country for our losses, in which case you're off the hook! "I am right behind you on this one. Join the peoples march on the 23rd. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, now that we've all insulted each other and felt better for ourselves by belittling others, how about we go back to being adults and semi-civil? With regards to a public vote on the final deal, I have a feeling it'd never get to that anyway because, the way things are going, we'll be lucky if parliament (and especially the government) agrees on anything amongst themselves in order to get to a point where a deal is actually agreed. Maybe we should all resign ourselves to the fact that the circle cannot be squared and be done with it. We can then blame each other for not getting our way. I, for one, will be going after each and every Brexiteer on here to collect *from them* the money I lose as a result of Brexit. Unless JRM and Banks open a fund to compensate the whole country for our losses, in which case you're off the hook! "Thats fine I will be round to collect from you my bit of the millions we have paid over net each wk to the EU then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*This is a confrontation free zone. You will be whipped if you are naughty *
---
We can all agree (I hope!) that, whether voted leave or remain, we all want the best for our country and that the difference in how we voted is because we see things from a different perspective.
I hope that most of us will also agree that when we were asked to vote (*compared to now*) very few people knew in detail what the customs union was or what the EEA was or what the exact workings of the EU were.
My question is this (and it's a two-part one):
1. Who should "approve" the final deal? The government only? The parliament as a whole? Or should *we* be asked to vote once we have all the details and we know exactly what we're getting? (*please note*: I'm *not* talking about a second referendum on in or out but purely a vote on whether we are happy with what the government has managed to negotiate -in which case, move forward and implement it- or we're not happy and we'd like them to negotiate a different/modified deal).
2. Would you support such a "public" vote? If yes, why? If no, why?
----
Thank you in advance for your best efforts in trying to keep things civil and have a constructive debate"we voted .we had a,result .learn to deal with the result .you don't get second chances in most other things so why now . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*This is a confrontation free zone. You will be whipped if you are naughty *
---
We can all agree (I hope!) that, whether voted leave or remain, we all want the best for our country and that the difference in how we voted is because we see things from a different perspective.
I hope that most of us will also agree that when we were asked to vote (*compared to now*) very few people knew in detail what the customs union was or what the EEA was or what the exact workings of the EU were.
My question is this (and it's a two-part one):
1. Who should "approve" the final deal? The government only? The parliament as a whole? Or should *we* be asked to vote once we have all the details and we know exactly what we're getting? (*please note*: I'm *not* talking about a second referendum on in or out but purely a vote on whether we are happy with what the government has managed to negotiate -in which case, move forward and implement it- or we're not happy and we'd like them to negotiate a different/modified deal).
2. Would you support such a "public" vote? If yes, why? If no, why?
----
Thank you in advance for your best efforts in trying to keep things civil and have a constructive debatewe voted .we had a,result .learn to deal with the result .you don't get second chances in most other things so why now . "So we’re fucked, and we have to stay fucked because “you don’t get second chances in most other things”? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"*This is a confrontation free zone. You will be whipped if you are naughty *
---
We can all agree (I hope!) that, whether voted leave or remain, we all want the best for our country and that the difference in how we voted is because we see things from a different perspective.
I hope that most of us will also agree that when we were asked to vote (*compared to now*) very few people knew in detail what the customs union was or what the EEA was or what the exact workings of the EU were.
My question is this (and it's a two-part one):
1. Who should "approve" the final deal? The government only? The parliament as a whole? Or should *we* be asked to vote once we have all the details and we know exactly what we're getting? (*please note*: I'm *not* talking about a second referendum on in or out but purely a vote on whether we are happy with what the government has managed to negotiate -in which case, move forward and implement it- or we're not happy and we'd like them to negotiate a different/modified deal).
2. Would you support such a "public" vote? If yes, why? If no, why?
----
Thank you in advance for your best efforts in trying to keep things civil and have a constructive debatewe voted .we had a,result .learn to deal with the result .you don't get second chances in most other things so why now .
So we’re fucked, and we have to stay fucked because “you don’t get second chances in most other things”?"The fear of Brexiteers to hold a second vote based on facts the truth and reality.the fear of letting the citezens who will be most effected by what ever decision is made have a democratic vote. The fear of people from other lands. Now who is project fear!?? When political groups try to stiffle oposition to themesleves there is a name for that. Totalitarianism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No way ...voted out so out we go ....get on with it" I think the problems are here for years It will only get worse as tears go by | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, now that we've all insulted each other and felt better for ourselves by belittling others, how about we go back to being adults and semi-civil? With regards to a public vote on the final deal, I have a feeling it'd never get to that anyway because, the way things are going, we'll be lucky if parliament (and especially the government) agrees on anything amongst themselves in order to get to a point where a deal is actually agreed. Maybe we should all resign ourselves to the fact that the circle cannot be squared and be done with it. We can then blame each other for not getting our way. I, for one, will be going after each and every Brexiteer on here to collect *from them* the money I lose as a result of Brexit. Unless JRM and Banks open a fund to compensate the whole country for our losses, in which case you're off the hook!
Thats fine I will be round to collect from you my bit of the millions we have paid over net each wk to the EU then. "Deal!  As long as you give up everything you got out/benefited from (directly or indirectly) retrospectively as a result | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, now that we've all insulted each other and felt better for ourselves by belittling others, how about we go back to being adults and semi-civil? With regards to a public vote on the final deal, I have a feeling it'd never get to that anyway because, the way things are going, we'll be lucky if parliament (and especially the government) agrees on anything amongst themselves in order to get to a point where a deal is actually agreed. Maybe we should all resign ourselves to the fact that the circle cannot be squared and be done with it. We can then blame each other for not getting our way. I, for one, will be going after each and every Brexiteer on here to collect *from them* the money I lose as a result of Brexit. Unless JRM and Banks open a fund to compensate the whole country for our losses, in which case you're off the hook!
Thats fine I will be round to collect from you my bit of the millions we have paid over net each wk to the EU then.
Deal! As long as you give up everything you got out/benefited from (directly or indirectly) retrospectively as a result "P.S. I don't think that Mr Farage would be happy if you compromised his pension! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easy answer shoot all the politicians and especially the civil servants and get the business brains to sort it out Well the people who ran Carillion are probably looking for something to do
Theres no point fetishising business people as being any better than politicians, union leaders or anyone else. They have successes and failures like anyone else and theyre best suited to the roles they have experience in.
Exactly doing business deals, how many civil servants or politicians have experience in that, of course you need the best ones, ones that have risen from little and made a success from small beginnings
Trade deals and border deals arent the same as business deals.
The guy who has run Toys R Us into the ground is also the same guy that led the turnaround of Dominos pizza. Everyone has wins and losses and the civil service at least have experience and knowledge of the areas that are being negotiated.
Yet we hear from remainers all the time that the uk civil servants have no experience of doing trade deals, now you are saying they have
.
The only trade deal we need is free trade, that is what businesses ALL round europe want, its to the benefit of all, its the euro politicians that want tariffs imposed to deter others from leaving the EU, if free trade in the EU has been so good then why does anyone want to change it, except for political reasons of course, the irish border is just being used by those who dont want us to leave as an excuse to try and stop us, we have freedom of movement now anywhere in europe, yet try getting into france or even ireland from the uk or vice versa without a passport, why should going north to south be any different? apart of course because some want to make life difficult for us to leave"Some civil servants will be versed in the complexities of dealing with international trade organisations, and their member nations, and dealing with navigating internation law and geopolitics. The thing is though, those who can wont, as they have said it'll be a mark of failure for them. Moreover, please try to understand you cant just recruit a private sector worker, making him into a high status civil servant, and expect him to transfer knowledge aquired in the boardroom to legal courts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a referendum on the final negotiated deal, or if in the wisdom of parliament, on the no deal scenario. Yes = accept it, no = stay in EU. I doubt many people who voted to leave envisaged the current mess, and we are now careering towards a deal which will have most of the disadvantages of EU membership without the advantages. I doubt this would get a majority mandate." Or how about, the referendum in 2016 was to leave the EU. Do you want to a) accept the deal offered by the EU?, or b) walk away, not pay a penny, and trade on WTO terms? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a referendum on the final negotiated deal, or if in the wisdom of parliament, on the no deal scenario. Yes = accept it, no = stay in EU. I doubt many people who voted to leave envisaged the current mess, and we are now careering towards a deal which will have most of the disadvantages of EU membership without the advantages. I doubt this would get a majority mandate. Or how about, the referendum in 2016 was to leave the EU. Do you want to a) accept the deal offered by the EU?, or b) walk away, not pay a penny, and trade on WTO terms?" Or how about a non-binary choice selecting order of preference for: A) Accept the deal B) Walk away C) Stay in the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a referendum on the final negotiated deal, or if in the wisdom of parliament, on the no deal scenario. Yes = accept it, no = stay in EU. I doubt many people who voted to leave envisaged the current mess, and we are now careering towards a deal which will have most of the disadvantages of EU membership without the advantages. I doubt this would get a majority mandate. Or how about, the referendum in 2016 was to leave the EU. Do you want to a) accept the deal offered by the EU?, or b) walk away, not pay a penny, and trade on WTO terms?" The UK has a complex situation, including states such as Northern Ireland - leaving the EU involves more than notification and ensuring some tariffs or other are paid. The agreement made in December 2017 means that most of the conservative party arguments and fantastical ideas they've distracted themselves and the public they serve - to keep Theresa May in power - have wasted valuable time and help feed the delusions of the seriously demented extremists.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a referendum on the final negotiated deal, or if in the wisdom of parliament, on the no deal scenario. Yes = accept it, no = stay in EU. I doubt many people who voted to leave envisaged the current mess, and we are now careering towards a deal which will have most of the disadvantages of EU membership without the advantages. I doubt this would get a majority mandate. Or how about, the referendum in 2016 was to leave the EU. Do you want to a) accept the deal offered by the EU?, or b) walk away, not pay a penny, and trade on WTO terms? The UK has a complex situation, including states such as Northern Ireland - leaving the EU involves more than notification and ensuring some tariffs or other are paid. The agreement made in December 2017 means that most of the conservative party arguments and fantastical ideas they've distracted themselves and the public they serve - to keep Theresa May in power - have wasted valuable time and help feed the delusions of the seriously demented extremists. "Yes, tge seriously demented extremists on both sides of rge divide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a referendum on the final negotiated deal, or if in the wisdom of parliament, on the no deal scenario. Yes = accept it, no = stay in EU. I doubt many people who voted to leave envisaged the current mess, and we are now careering towards a deal which will have most of the disadvantages of EU membership without the advantages. I doubt this would get a majority mandate. Or how about, the referendum in 2016 was to leave the EU. Do you want to a) accept the deal offered by the EU?, or b) walk away, not pay a penny, and trade on WTO terms? Or how about a non-binary choice selecting order of preference for: A) Accept the deal B) Walk away C) Stay in the EU. " So what happens if the outcome is a third, a third and a third? And wouldn't it not be 'stay in the EU, but 'apply to rejoin the EU'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a referendum on the final negotiated deal, or if in the wisdom of parliament, on the no deal scenario. Yes = accept it, no = stay in EU. I doubt many people who voted to leave envisaged the current mess, and we are now careering towards a deal which will have most of the disadvantages of EU membership without the advantages. I doubt this would get a majority mandate." There doesn't have to be. Once the UK has left the EU Parliament will be sovereign again and will be able to negotiate any changes in terms they wish. They may not be able to win the negotiations of course but they will be free to try. The public will have the final say on such negotiations in the General Election following such change and harmony will rule again. That is the whole point about Brexit gaining control again. That means being able to allow as many immigrants in as we want or need to fill job vacancies, negotiating trade deals, making and amending our laws etc. to suit ourselves not because 27 other countries have decided that is what will happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a referendum on the final negotiated deal, or if in the wisdom of parliament, on the no deal scenario. Yes = accept it, no = stay in EU. I doubt many people who voted to leave envisaged the current mess, and we are now careering towards a deal which will have most of the disadvantages of EU membership without the advantages. I doubt this would get a majority mandate. There doesn't have to be. Once the UK has left the EU Parliament will be sovereign again and will be able to negotiate any changes in terms they wish. They may not be able to win the negotiations of course but they will be free to try. The public will have the final say on such negotiations in the General Election following such change and harmony will rule again. That is the whole point about Brexit gaining control again. That means being able to allow as many immigrants in as we want or need to fill job vacancies, negotiating trade deals, making and amending our laws etc. to suit ourselves not because 27 other countries have decided that is what will happen. "Yeah, that was the theory, but the reality is not stacking up. We will be following EU law for the most part to allow our businesses to continue trading with Europe and our economy to not fall off a cliff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just not true, we can revoke Art50 i.e. intention to leave, right up until the deadline - not after though of course. The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Article 50 cannot be withdrawn and the UK leaves the EU next year. As for a vote on the tems of withdrawal any vote would be to accept the terms or leave on no deal." Did the Supreme Court rule that? I think not but if you can point me to anything legitimate that says it has I'll stand corrected. Personally I'm not over enthusiastic about having a 3rd referendum on this issue and can see absolutely no point in having a referendum on leave with no deal or leave with a bad deal. In this country Parliament is Sovereign and, regardless of any referendum held in the past or possibly in the furniture, it remains sovereign and, more importantly, accountable. I may be happy or not with what parliament decides, but I'm happy enough to allow parliament to decide and them hold those making the decision accountable. Claiming that something is 'the will of the people' is no excuse for dereliction of duty and won't stop those responsible for this mess, and their fellow travelers, from being held to account for the decisions they're making. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say." The only way that could work would be with some sort of 'single transferable vote', but, especially if no lesser weighting was put on second preference votes, the middle 'Leave with (bad) deal' option would probably win. A straight 'first past the post' vote would be open to the obvious criticism that the leave vote is slit between two options - leave with no deal or leave with deal - whilst the remain would unite around one - Stay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am in faviour of a Peoples vote on the deal. However to make that vote meaningful there must be 3 questions. No deal The deal Stay. The country is devided and dispite my remain view some sort of concensious must be reached. Also that vote must include 16 and 17 year olds. Only about 36% of the population voted for leave and thats Not a Will of the people majority. The young people of this country have the most to lose/ or gain by this decision they Must be given thier say. There can be no third option, (i.e. to stay) as the top court in the land has already ruled that out. As for 16 & 17 years olds having a say why should they, they are excluded from general elections some why should they have a voice in something like this. In addition it is very easy to sway the opinions of that age group as they are at a stage in their lives where they are experimenting. This leads to a lot a rash decisions regretted later as they mature. If there is a new vote then make those who want the new vote pay all the costs involved, not the general population. I wonder how many would be calling for a new vote then. " You're still wrong about the Supreme Court and, no matter how much you big up the result of the last referendum, it clearly does not reflect a decisive or clear 'will of the people'. That's the main reason why the whole BREXIT thing is proving so difficult to deliver - a lot of people (possibly now even a majority) don't want it. I agree with you on the 16 & 17 year olds. However, whilst i wouldn't include them, the British people with the most to loose in leaving the EU are probably the British citizens living in the EU (1.7 million) who were not allowed to vote last time. As for your suggestion that those who want another referendum should pay for it! I'll take that more seriously when you and those who wanted the last referendum (which was actually the second referendum) on this issue offer to pay for that one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, now that we've all insulted each other and felt better for ourselves by belittling others, how about we go back to being adults and semi-civil? With regards to a public vote on the final deal, I have a feeling it'd never get to that anyway because, the way things are going, we'll be lucky if parliament (and especially the government) agrees on anything amongst themselves in order to get to a point where a deal is actually agreed. Maybe we should all resign ourselves to the fact that the circle cannot be squared and be done with it. We can then blame each other for not getting our way. I, for one, will be going after each and every Brexiteer on here to collect *from them* the money I lose as a result of Brexit. Unless JRM and Banks open a fund to compensate the whole country for our losses, in which case you're off the hook!
I am right behind you on this one. Join the peoples march on the 23rd."I'll be there! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You're still wrong about the Supreme Court and, no matter how much you big up the result of the last referendum, it clearly does not reflect a decisive or clear 'will of the people'. That's the main reason why the whole BREXIT thing is proving so difficult to deliver - a lot of people (possibly now even a majority) don't want it. I agree with you on the 16 & 17 year olds. However, whilst i wouldn't include them, the British people with the most to loose in leaving the EU are probably the British citizens living in the EU (1.7 million) who were not allowed to vote last time. As for your suggestion that those who want another referendum should pay for it! I'll take that more seriously when you and those who wanted the last referendum (which was actually the second referendum) on this issue offer to pay for that one. " Check the Court Rulings and you will be surprised then. As for your claim British citizens living in the EU (1.7 million) who were not allowed to vote last time, only those living abroad for more than 15 years could not vote, those who had been living abroad for less than 15 years could vote, if of course they were registered. You cannot ask people to pay for something that has already taken place, if you want someone to pay for something you have got to arrange that before the event not after. As for Brexit not being decisive the main reason for that was the murder of the MP Jo Cox. Prior to her murder the Brexit campaign were on a charge and would have won with a higher majority. The murder broke that momentum and many people not wishing to be associated with the ideals of her murder decided to abstain or voted remain instead in support of Jo’s passionate views on the subject. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a referendum on the final negotiated deal, or if in the wisdom of parliament, on the no deal scenario. Yes = accept it, no = stay in EU. I doubt many people who voted to leave envisaged the current mess, and we are now careering towards a deal which will have most of the disadvantages of EU membership without the advantages. I doubt this would get a majority mandate. There doesn't have to be. Once the UK has left the EU Parliament will be sovereign again and will be able to negotiate any changes in terms they wish. They may not be able to win the negotiations of course but they will be free to try. The public will have the final say on such negotiations in the General Election following such change and harmony will rule again. That is the whole point about Brexit gaining control again. That means being able to allow as many immigrants in as we want or need to fill job vacancies, negotiating trade deals, making and amending our laws etc. to suit ourselves not because 27 other countries have decided that is what will happen. "Surely just looking at the incompetence of our government in negotiating the leave position fills you with dread on their ability to negotiate any positive outcome once out? Leaving the EU does not put us in a position of strength in anything at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You're still wrong about the Supreme Court and, no matter how much you big up the result of the last referendum, it clearly does not reflect a decisive or clear 'will of the people'. That's the main reason why the whole BREXIT thing is proving so difficult to deliver - a lot of people (possibly now even a majority) don't want it. I agree with you on the 16 & 17 year olds. However, whilst i wouldn't include them, the British people with the most to loose in leaving the EU are probably the British citizens living in the EU (1.7 million) who were not allowed to vote last time. As for your suggestion that those who want another referendum should pay for it! I'll take that more seriously when you and those who wanted the last referendum (which was actually the second referendum) on this issue offer to pay for that one. Check the Court Rulings and you will be surprised then. As for your claim British citizens living in the EU (1.7 million) who were not allowed to vote last time, only those living abroad for more than 15 years could not vote, those who had been living abroad for less than 15 years could vote, if of course they were registered. You cannot ask people to pay for something that has already taken place, if you want someone to pay for something you have got to arrange that before the event not after. As for Brexit not being decisive the main reason for that was the murder of the MP Jo Cox. Prior to her murder the Brexit campaign were on a charge and would have won with a higher majority. The murder broke that momentum and many people not wishing to be associated with the ideals of her murder decided to abstain or voted remain instead in support of Jo’s passionate views on the subject. " would agree that a large chuck of the 48% was just a sympathy vote for Jo Cox. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You're still wrong about the Supreme Court and, no matter how much you big up the result of the last referendum, it clearly does not reflect a decisive or clear 'will of the people'. That's the main reason why the whole BREXIT thing is proving so difficult to deliver - a lot of people (possibly now even a majority) don't want it. I agree with you on the 16 & 17 year olds. However, whilst i wouldn't include them, the British people with the most to loose in leaving the EU are probably the British citizens living in the EU (1.7 million) who were not allowed to vote last time. As for your suggestion that those who want another referendum should pay for it! I'll take that more seriously when you and those who wanted the last referendum (which was actually the second referendum) on this issue offer to pay for that one. Check the Court Rulings and you will be surprised then. As for your claim British citizens living in the EU (1.7 million) who were not allowed to vote last time, only those living abroad for more than 15 years could not vote, those who had been living abroad for less than 15 years could vote, if of course they were registered. You cannot ask people to pay for something that has already taken place, if you want someone to pay for something you have got to arrange that before the event not after. As for Brexit not being decisive the main reason for that was the murder of the MP Jo Cox. Prior to her murder the Brexit campaign were on a charge and would have won with a higher majority. The murder broke that momentum and many people not wishing to be associated with the ideals of her murder decided to abstain or voted remain instead in support of Jo’s passionate views on the subject. would agree that a large chuck of the 48% was just a sympathy vote for Jo Cox. "Utter tripe you disgust us a disgraceful kipper vile man | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No way ...voted out so out we go ....get on with it" .if Theresa May can't do it .bring in someone who can and won't stand for all this EU rubbish .it beggers belief .the vote was out ....deal with it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No way ...voted out so out we go ....get on with it .if Theresa May can't do it .bring in someone who can and won't stand for all this EU rubbish .it beggers belief .the vote was out ....deal with it "nice "hot take" there..... problem is it doesn't deal with the real world situation, which is there are more net "tory mp's" who would vote against any hard brexit and with the opposition and would kill any deal.... and if think that situation would get any better if you had one of "yours" at PM... it would probably make it worse and likely split the party in 2..... yesterday they planned a canny game... to make the rebels think they got one thing whilst telling the press and briefing that it got another! problem is that gets them a weeks grace because if they don't act on what was promised it will go to the lords... get defeated and go straight back to the commons!!! and then why would your rebels believe you next time??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" would agree that a large chuck of the 48% was just a sympathy vote for Jo Cox. "why am i truely not surprised a comment like that would come from you...... see i am actually truely torn... see, part of me wishes you wouldn't say things as vile as this, but since your views on topics such as this are widely known...sometimes i think the best thing you could do would be to keep it shut! but then part of me is actually really happy that people get to see you for the loathsome creature you are... and what better way for people to see that then through your own words!!!!! it's foul, it's disgusting, it's abhorrent, and it way beyond the bounds of decency...... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No way ...voted out so out we go ....get on with it .if Theresa May can't do it .bring in someone who can and won't stand for all this EU rubbish .it beggers belief .the vote was out ....deal with it
nice "hot take" there.....
problem is it doesn't deal with the real world situation, which is there are more net "tory mp's" who would vote against any hard brexit and with the opposition and would kill any deal....
and if think that situation would get any better if you had one of "yours" at PM... it would probably make it worse and likely split the party in 2.....
yesterday they planned a canny game... to make the rebels think they got one thing whilst telling the press and briefing that it got another! problem is that gets them a weeks grace because if they don't act on what was promised it will go to the lords... get defeated and go straight back to the commons!!!
and then why would your rebels believe you next time???"Time and time again you keep forgetting about the Labour MP's who back the government on Brexit which cancel out the Tory remain rebels. Labour MP's like Kate Hoey, Frank Field, John Mann and Dennis Skinner among others. Even Caroline Flint is now supportive of the publics choice in the referendum being delivered and she believes that the government should not be held up. Then you have the lifelong Brexiter Jeremy Corbyn, who has wanted out of the EU his whole career. Your numbers just don't add up Fabio! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" would agree that a large chuck of the 48% was just a sympathy vote for Jo Cox.
why am i truely not surprised a comment like that would come from you......
see i am actually truely torn...
see, part of me wishes you wouldn't say things as vile as this, but since your views on topics such as this are widely known...sometimes i think the best thing you could do would be to keep it shut!
but then part of me is actually really happy that people get to see you for the loathsome creature you are... and what better way for people to see that then through your own words!!!!!
it's foul, it's disgusting, it's abhorrent, and it way beyond the bounds of decency......
"I was agreeing with another poster who brought it up first (who I quoted). Funny how you only quoted me though
You may not like it but as the old saying goes 'Truth Hurts'! The poster I quoted was spot on, that Leave was streaking ahead of Remain in the last week of the referendum until the murder of Jo Cox changed things. Her murder undoubtedly brought in a big number of sympathy votes for Remain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" would agree that a large chuck of the 48% was just a sympathy vote for Jo Cox.
why am i truely not surprised a comment like that would come from you......
see i am actually truely torn...
see, part of me wishes you wouldn't say things as vile as this, but since your views on topics such as this are widely known...sometimes i think the best thing you could do would be to keep it shut!
but then part of me is actually really happy that people get to see you for the loathsome creature you are... and what better way for people to see that then through your own words!!!!!
it's foul, it's disgusting, it's abhorrent, and it way beyond the bounds of decency......
I was agreeing with another poster who brought it up first (who I quoted). Funny how you only quoted me though
You may not like it but as the old saying goes 'Truth Hurts'! The poster I quoted was spot on, that Leave was streaking ahead of Remain in the last week of the referendum until the murder of Jo Cox changed things. Her murder undoubtedly brought in a big number of sympathy votes for Remain. "Bollox is the only expression that comes to mind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No way ...voted out so out we go ....get on with it .if Theresa May can't do it .bring in someone who can and won't stand for all this EU rubbish .it beggers belief .the vote was out ....deal with it
nice "hot take" there.....
problem is it doesn't deal with the real world situation, which is there are more net "tory mp's" who would vote against any hard brexit and with the opposition and would kill any deal....
and if think that situation would get any better if you had one of "yours" at PM... it would probably make it worse and likely split the party in 2.....
yesterday they planned a canny game... to make the rebels think they got one thing whilst telling the press and briefing that it got another! problem is that gets them a weeks grace because if they don't act on what was promised it will go to the lords... get defeated and go straight back to the commons!!!
and then why would your rebels believe you next time???
Time and time again you keep forgetting about the Labour MP's who back the government on Brexit which cancel out the Tory remain rebels. Labour MP's like Kate Hoey, Frank Field, John Mann and Dennis Skinner among others. Even Caroline Flint is now supportive of the publics choice in the referendum being delivered and she believes that the government should not be held up. Then you have the lifelong Brexiter Jeremy Corbyn, who has wanted out of the EU his whole career. Your numbers just don't add up Fabio! "you do realise that the term "net tory mp's" means there are more tory mps likely to vote against the goverment on this issue than there are labour mps that would vote with the government..... so even after the nonsense that normally comes out of your mouth (which is that you haven't understood what was said, but feel the need to comment anyway) if everyone was to vote the way they have voted in the past... there are certain parts the government would lose on!!!! why do you think the government were so worried yesterday!!!!!....... for that very reason!!!!  the net tory mp potential gain would have meant a government defeat!!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No way ...voted out so out we go ....get on with it .if Theresa May can't do it .bring in someone who can and won't stand for all this EU rubbish .it beggers belief .the vote was out ....deal with it "The 'rubbish' is ours - the EU have largely waited patiently whilst the conservatives twist and turn every which way upon very fixed agreements already signed up to, the Good Friday agreement and Dec 2017 one the UK fixed with the EU that were very clear. As many people share in depth, it's not about just saying bye and all financial, trade and legal systems resume through rose tinted spectacles the next moment. Things will take many years to evolve and complete - and that's if the UK is competent
It might matter less if the conservatives weren't subject to self-preservation and individuals trying to gain at their colleagues expense.
As can be seen on the forum there are some toxic mindsets at work in favor of Brexit, where the overall good of the nation and its people is of insignificance. This theme was present beforehand and is indicative of the minimal intelligence and thinking abilities that are too prominent.
The sovereignty of parliament was important before and should be respected during negotiations and conclusion, supportive of a more educated vote on the implementation implications and acceptability or not. A government that hoodwinks and deceives, whilst invalidating parliaments power, expertise and democratic abilities is worthy of limited respect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No way ...voted out so out we go ....get on with it .if Theresa May can't do it .bring in someone who can and won't stand for all this EU rubbish .it beggers belief .the vote was out ....deal with it
The 'rubbish' is ours - the EU have largely waited patiently whilst the conservatives twist and turn every which way upon very fixed agreements already signed up to, the Good Friday agreement and Dec 2017 one the UK fixed with the EU that were very clear.
As many people share in depth, it's not about just saying bye and all financial, trade and legal systems resume through rose tinted spectacles the next moment. Things will take many years to evolve and complete - and that's if the UK is competent
It might matter less if the conservatives weren't subject to self-preservation and individuals trying to gain at their colleagues expense.
As can be seen on the forum there are some toxic mindsets at work in favor of Brexit, where the overall good of the nation and its people is of insignificance. This theme was present beforehand and is indicative of the minimal intelligence and thinking abilities that are too prominent.
The sovereignty of parliament was important before and should be respected during negotiations and conclusion, supportive of a more educated vote on the implementation implications and acceptability or not. A government that hoodwinks and deceives, whilst invalidating parliaments power, expertise and democratic abilities is worthy of limited respect."How can you claim to be concerned for the overall good of the nation and its people when you vote for Corbyn? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
