Farage's March To Leave
Discussion
They're 3 areas that have changed in the last 40 years without requiring any more than normal acts of parliament by a simple majority of MPs. You could also say road safety, taxation or anything else.
We don't have any long standing precedents for requiring super majorities for anything in British politics so far as I know. Why should one be required for this?
It's just another impotent grumble from people who are sore about not getting the result they wanted and are trying to justify ignoring the result however they can.
At the very least there should be some sort of structure to when and how a super majority is required. Would any of those calling for extra democracy and super majorities be happy with a requirement for Remain to get at least 75% in a second In/Out vote in order to over turn the first result?
We don't have any long standing precedents for requiring super majorities for anything in British politics so far as I know. Why should one be required for this?
It's just another impotent grumble from people who are sore about not getting the result they wanted and are trying to justify ignoring the result however they can.
At the very least there should be some sort of structure to when and how a super majority is required. Would any of those calling for extra democracy and super majorities be happy with a requirement for Remain to get at least 75% in a second In/Out vote in order to over turn the first result?
wc98 said:
Piha said:
chrispmartha said:
But...... but....... but....... durrr, it doesn't mean wot it says innit......... I didn't vote Leave for that............
how much influence did the remain campaign have on you ?
The official line was "only an idiot would have believed that be true".
Which is a bit like saying Leave Voters were a bunch of idiots.
chrispmartha said:
Down and out said:
chrispmartha said:
He wrote a well thought out post, which you may disagree with but don’t counter with any decent points and you’re telling him to grow up?
It's a pretty decent point that you want to have another go because it didn't go your way. That's the bottom line when you cut through the waffle. Flip it round remain had won by a small margin, would you really just suck it up and say fair enough we lost?
The referendum should have had to have a clear majority (either way ) to have been a settles decision, the blame lies fair and square with David Cameron who was arrogant enough to think remain would automatically win.
Enacting on a decision that was pretty much an even split was always going to cause the division that is now occuring in the country, its got nothing to do with who ‘won’ or ‘lost’ think about the bigger picture and the shades of grey in between the black and white.
I fully expect Corbyn to be our next PM and I think it will be financially disastrous for me personally, and the country as a whole. I will accept that he is our legitimate PM though as it will be what the majority voted for.
98elise said:
chrispmartha said:
Down and out said:
chrispmartha said:
He wrote a well thought out post, which you may disagree with but don’t counter with any decent points and you’re telling him to grow up?
It's a pretty decent point that you want to have another go because it didn't go your way. That's the bottom line when you cut through the waffle. Flip it round remain had won by a small margin, would you really just suck it up and say fair enough we lost?
The referendum should have had to have a clear majority (either way ) to have been a settles decision, the blame lies fair and square with David Cameron who was arrogant enough to think remain would automatically win.
Enacting on a decision that was pretty much an even split was always going to cause the division that is now occuring in the country, its got nothing to do with who ‘won’ or ‘lost’ think about the bigger picture and the shades of grey in between the black and white.
I fully expect Corbyn to be our next PM and I think it will be financially disastrous for me personally, and the country as a whole. I will accept that he is our legitimate PM though as it will be what the majority voted for.
chrispmartha said:
Absolute arrogant and condescending rubbish, you questioned wether the let’s give it to the nhs line was part of the official canpaign and asked me to back it up, I did with a link to the official campaign, show some humility and admit that it was both part of the official campaign and an integral part of it (why would the have at the lead image for download of not)
Where was my ‘cobblers, gossip and ‘gross misrepresentation’? Where?
By the way Turkey wants to join the EU but in no terms is that actually happening or even if it does it will by no means be any time soon, now if you want misreprentation you’ve just offered up some right there.
My apologies to others, no wish to flog a dead horse, but as you have descended to abuse and insult I have right to reply. Where was my ‘cobblers, gossip and ‘gross misrepresentation’? Where?
By the way Turkey wants to join the EU but in no terms is that actually happening or even if it does it will by no means be any time soon, now if you want misreprentation you’ve just offered up some right there.
1st para: I did not question if the photo was part of the leave campaign, I asked you to validate that it was, because you asserted it was. There is an unsubtle difference there. You attempted to deflect.
2nd para: The reference to 'cobblers'/ was a general criticism of the whole so-called debate, in no way personalised to you. Another deflection.
3rd para: Turkey. No other putative application to join the EU has been refused membership so far as I know. It was a negotiation about funding and concerns about maintenance of contributions (following the debacle that was Greece).
Yet you still decline to validate your posting of a particular photo as part of the official Leave campaign as requested, and default (when called out) to personal abuse - typical of some of the bluster since 2016 at the result. Don't, whatever you do, offer evidence to support your wild assertations, just slag off the man. As did Carney, Osborne, Cameron, Major, and so many others.
I regret I do not understand your bracketed sentence: '(why would the have at the lead image for download of not)'. Are you sure you want to criticise others for alleged 'condescending rubbish'?
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 7th April 16:02
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 7th April 16:03
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 7th April 16:07
Thorodin said:
chrispmartha said:
Absolute arrogant and condescending rubbish, you questioned wether the let’s give it to the nhs line was part of the official canpaign and asked me to back it up, I did with a link to the official campaign, show some humility and admit that it was both part of the official campaign and an integral part of it (why would the have at the lead image for download of not)
Where was my ‘cobblers, gossip and ‘gross misrepresentation’? Where?
By the way Turkey wants to join the EU but in no terms is that actually happening or even if it does it will by no means be any time soon, now if you want misreprentation you’ve just offered up some right there.
My apologies to others, no wish to flog a dead horse, but as you have descended to abuse and insult I have right to reply. Where was my ‘cobblers, gossip and ‘gross misrepresentation’? Where?
By the way Turkey wants to join the EU but in no terms is that actually happening or even if it does it will by no means be any time soon, now if you want misreprentation you’ve just offered up some right there.
1st para: I did not question if the photo was part of the leave campaign, I asked you to validate that it was, because you asserted it was. There is an unsubtle difference there. You attempted to deflect.
2nd para: The reference to 'cobblers'/ was a general criticism of the whole so-called debate, in no way personalised to you. Another deflection.
3rd para: Turkey. No other putative application to join the EU has been refused membership so far as I know. It was a negotiation about funding and concerns about maintenance of contributions (following the debacle that was Greece).
Yet you still decline to validate your posting of a particular photo as part of the official Leave campaign as requested, and default (when called out) to personal abuse - typical of some of the bluster since 2016 at the result. Don't, whatever you do, offer evidence to support your wild assertations, just slag off the man. As did Carney, Osborne, Cameron, Major, and so many others.
I regret I do not understand your bracketed sentence: 'why would the have at the lead image for download of not)' Are you sure you want to criticise others for alleged 'condescending rubbish?
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 7th April 16:02
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 7th April 16:03
what do you mean by refuse to validate my posting of a picture as a part of the official leave campaign? I posted a link to their official website for you, did you miss it?
My bracketed point is quite simple, If the ‘let’s give it to the NHS’ slogan wasn’t an integral part of the Leave EU campaign they wouldn’t have it on their download section of their website.
On Turkey, their entry to the EU is not even close to being ratified and there is no certainty that it will be allowed to join therefore ‘Turkey is joining the EU’ is a lie.
Edited by chrispmartha on Sunday 7th April 16:14
chrispmartha said:
what do you mean by refuse to validate my posting of a picture as a part of the official leave campaign?
My bracketed point is quite simple, If the ‘let’s give it to the NHS’ slogan wasn’t an integral part of the Leave EU campaign they wouldn’t have it on their download section of their website.
On Turkey, their entry to the EU is not even close to being ratified and there is no certainty that it will be allowed to joon therefore ‘Turkey is joining the EU’ is a lie.
This is painfully pointless. I did not use the word 'refused', I said 'decline', see above. It was a request to verify your information which you have so far declined to produce. My bracketed point is quite simple, If the ‘let’s give it to the NHS’ slogan wasn’t an integral part of the Leave EU campaign they wouldn’t have it on their download section of their website.
On Turkey, their entry to the EU is not even close to being ratified and there is no certainty that it will be allowed to joon therefore ‘Turkey is joining the EU’ is a lie.
Please do not misquote, it is obvious and of no relevance. I was, as you well know, asking you for evidence of it being included in the campaign material. It really is that simple. As your grasp of the printed word is haphazard I see no point in any further explanation.
chrispmartha said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Biased BBC ;-)I was surprised when I saw it was from the BBC. A link to the vid of Tim Martin tearing a massive remain biased BBC presenter a new one led me there.
I was pleased though that those young people seemed to have voted leave for many good reasons and interesting to see them laughing off the bus as a load of old nonsense. There may be a bright future if there are more of them.
gooner1 said:
Nickgnome said:
So do you accept that when we joined the EEC it was both democratic and legitimate?
I agree that when we joined, the EEC was both democratic and legitimate.What the EEC morphed into however is quite a different entity.
Do you accept that the Referendum result was both democratic and legitimate?
Thorodin said:
chrispmartha said:
what do you mean by refuse to validate my posting of a picture as a part of the official leave campaign?
My bracketed point is quite simple, If the ‘let’s give it to the NHS’ slogan wasn’t an integral part of the Leave EU campaign they wouldn’t have it on their download section of their website.
On Turkey, their entry to the EU is not even close to being ratified and there is no certainty that it will be allowed to joon therefore ‘Turkey is joining the EU’ is a lie.
This is painfully pointless. I did not use the word 'refused', I said 'decline', see above. It was a request to verify your information which you have so far declined to produce. My bracketed point is quite simple, If the ‘let’s give it to the NHS’ slogan wasn’t an integral part of the Leave EU campaign they wouldn’t have it on their download section of their website.
On Turkey, their entry to the EU is not even close to being ratified and there is no certainty that it will be allowed to joon therefore ‘Turkey is joining the EU’ is a lie.
Please do not misquote, it is obvious and of no relevance. I was, as you well know, asking you for evidence of it being included in the campaign material. It really is that simple. As your grasp of the printed word is haphazard I see no point in any further explanation.
Which part of that are you struggling to get because yes, it really is that simple, for ease here’s the link again
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/campaign_resou...
Edited by chrispmartha on Sunday 7th April 16:42
chrispmartha said:
Down and out said:
chrispmartha said:
He wrote a well thought out post, which you may disagree with but don’t counter with any decent points and you’re telling him to grow up?
It's a pretty decent point that you want to have another go because it didn't go your way. That's the bottom line when you cut through the waffle. Flip it round remain had won by a small margin, would you really just suck it up and say fair enough we lost?
The referendum should have had to have a clear majority (either way ) to have been a settles decision, the blame lies fair and square with David Cameron who was arrogant enough to think remain would automatically win.
Enacting on a decision that was pretty much an even split was always going to cause the division that is now occuring in the country, its got nothing to do with who ‘won’ or ‘lost’ think about the bigger picture and the shades of grey in between the black and white.
David Cameron took a ridiculous risk but was only able to do so because the British constitution is unwritten. He judged that the Eurosceptics were a minority splinter group. I don’t need to tell you about that. What he then did was to change the constitution based on a bare majority in a referendum. That would not be regarded as lawful in most democratic countries, for a very good reason, which is that it places the foundations of the government at risk more or less on a whim and that is extremely dangerous and divisive.
However, and you may disagree, the Eurosceptics are indeed a minority splinter group. What I think happened was that no one really thought this vote would go Leave. Apart from anything else no one voting Leave actually knew what they were voting for, it could be one of many things with major unexpected implications as has now become clear. Leave organised a far more effective campaign than was expected, much of it misleading, xenophobic and reliant on the traditional last resort of the scoundrel, patriotism. They were helped by extraordinary arrogant statements by EU officials. A popular referendum is not a reference to the Delphic Oracle. It became a protest vote, as a result of which the future of the UK has been placed in the hands of what I, rightly or wrongly, see as a core of myopic Alf Garnett Little Englanders who have no vision plan or strategy for how this country is going to prosper, and furthermore don’t really care. However this core is, in my view, actually a very small number. Yet they are the ones driving us, through mischance and political miscalculation, towards poverty. If someone had even put forward a sensible plan and that had been voted on, I would accept it, but they didn’t. It was an act of gratuitous vandalism spurred by frustration with the institutions of the EU. After which the leaders just ran off, as vandals do.
Therefore, with the reality now ahead of us, and believing the current situation to be the result of a historical fluke, I think it is, in the absence of some kind of constitutional procedure, essential to have a further vote on much clearer grounds with the parties on each side explaining exactly what they propose to do.
Britain needs to ditch the post-imperialism and take stock of its real position in the world today. In Rome the drain covers are stamped SPQR. They are still after 1500 years waiting for the second coming. I have seen the hopes of a revival of ‘Great’ Britain raised and dashed more times than I like to recall. It’s over, there isn’t a Land of Hope and Glory future. Britain is wholly unable to raise sufficient investment capital internally. Even Thatcher realised in the end our economic future is dependent on foreign investment. Restriction on foreign ownership of British assets, once a sacred cow, has been totally abandoned. Even Morgan now belongs to an Italian Venture Capital outfit. That investment has been based over the last 40 years on EEC / EU membership.
The EU is problematic, but what we are doing is not the solution. We are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It does not have to be like that. The French are at the core of Britain’s difficulties with the EU. Listen to Dr Alice Weidel’s recent speech to the Bundestag which is blunt and penetrating, pro British and highly critical of Angela Merkel’s ‘post-1945’ attitude to this. Britain and Germany between them can sort this out. A strong relationship with Germany, in place of the mistrust and bogus triumphalism of the past, is the key to a future for both countries in the global marketplace. Bentley and Rolls-Royce, on a bigger scale, the pound retained along with London financial markets. As far as immigration and bureaucracy is concerned, may I suggest that those are OUR problems not theirs.
cardigankid said:
D&O - it is a given that we and many many others are never going to agree on this. The result of that is going to be a permanent fault line in the UK. It should never have happened. In Germany, where a new constitution was set up after the unfortunate Nazi business, laws were in essence of two types. One is settled on a simple majority. The other referred to as a Grundgesetz, or fundamental constitutional law, has to have a 70% majority.
David Cameron took a ridiculous risk but was only able to do so because the British constitution is unwritten. He judged that the Eurosceptics were a minority splinter group. I don’t need to tell you about that. What he then did was to change the constitution based on a bare majority in a referendum. That would not be regarded as lawful in most democratic countries, for a very good reason, which is that it places the foundations of the government at risk more or less on a whim and that is extremely dangerous and divisive.
However, and you may disagree, the Eurosceptics are indeed a minority splinter group. What I think happened was that no one really thought this vote would go Leave. Apart from anything else no one voting Leave actually knew what they were voting for, it could be one of many things with major unexpected implications as has now become clear. Leave organised a far more effective campaign than was expected, much of it misleading, xenophobic and reliant on the traditional last resort of the scoundrel, patriotism. They were helped by extraordinary arrogant statements by EU officials. A popular referendum is not a reference to the Delphic Oracle. It became a protest vote, as a result of which the future of the UK has been placed in the hands of what I, rightly or wrongly, see as a core of myopic Alf Garnett Little Englanders who have no vision plan or strategy for how this country is going to prosper, and furthermore don’t really care. However this core is, in my view, actually a very small number. Yet they are the ones driving us, through mischance and political miscalculation, towards poverty. If someone had even put forward a sensible plan and that had been voted on, I would accept it, but they didn’t. It was an act of gratuitous vandalism spurred by frustration with the institutions of the EU. After which the leaders just ran off, as vandals do.
Therefore, with the reality now ahead of us, and believing the current situation to be the result of a historical fluke, I think it is, in the absence of some kind of constitutional procedure, essential to have a further vote on much clearer grounds with the parties on each side explaining exactly what they propose to do.
Britain needs to ditch the post-imperialism and take stock of its real position in the world today. In Rome the drain covers are stamped SPQR. They are still after 1500 years waiting for the second coming. I have seen the hopes of a revival of ‘Great’ Britain raised and dashed more times than I like to recall. It’s over, there isn’t a Land of Hope and Glory future. Britain is wholly unable to raise sufficient investment capital internally. Even Thatcher realised in the end our economic future is dependent on foreign investment. Restriction on foreign ownership of British assets, once a sacred cow, has been totally abandoned. Even Morgan now belongs to an Italian Venture Capital outfit. That investment has been based over the last 40 years on EEC / EU membership.
The EU is problematic, but what we are doing is not the solution. We are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It does not have to be like that. The French are at the core of Britain’s difficulties with the EU. Listen to Dr Alice Weidel’s recent speech to the Bundestag which is blunt and penetrating, pro British and highly critical of Angela Merkel’s ‘post-1945’ attitude to this. Britain and Germany between them can sort this out. A strong relationship with Germany, in place of the mistrust and bogus triumphalism of the past, is the key to a future for both countries in the global marketplace. Bentley and Rolls-Royce, on a bigger scale, the pound retained along with London financial markets. As far as immigration and bureaucracy is concerned, may I suggest that those are OUR problems not theirs.
You lost me at 'no one knew what they were voting for'David Cameron took a ridiculous risk but was only able to do so because the British constitution is unwritten. He judged that the Eurosceptics were a minority splinter group. I don’t need to tell you about that. What he then did was to change the constitution based on a bare majority in a referendum. That would not be regarded as lawful in most democratic countries, for a very good reason, which is that it places the foundations of the government at risk more or less on a whim and that is extremely dangerous and divisive.
However, and you may disagree, the Eurosceptics are indeed a minority splinter group. What I think happened was that no one really thought this vote would go Leave. Apart from anything else no one voting Leave actually knew what they were voting for, it could be one of many things with major unexpected implications as has now become clear. Leave organised a far more effective campaign than was expected, much of it misleading, xenophobic and reliant on the traditional last resort of the scoundrel, patriotism. They were helped by extraordinary arrogant statements by EU officials. A popular referendum is not a reference to the Delphic Oracle. It became a protest vote, as a result of which the future of the UK has been placed in the hands of what I, rightly or wrongly, see as a core of myopic Alf Garnett Little Englanders who have no vision plan or strategy for how this country is going to prosper, and furthermore don’t really care. However this core is, in my view, actually a very small number. Yet they are the ones driving us, through mischance and political miscalculation, towards poverty. If someone had even put forward a sensible plan and that had been voted on, I would accept it, but they didn’t. It was an act of gratuitous vandalism spurred by frustration with the institutions of the EU. After which the leaders just ran off, as vandals do.
Therefore, with the reality now ahead of us, and believing the current situation to be the result of a historical fluke, I think it is, in the absence of some kind of constitutional procedure, essential to have a further vote on much clearer grounds with the parties on each side explaining exactly what they propose to do.
Britain needs to ditch the post-imperialism and take stock of its real position in the world today. In Rome the drain covers are stamped SPQR. They are still after 1500 years waiting for the second coming. I have seen the hopes of a revival of ‘Great’ Britain raised and dashed more times than I like to recall. It’s over, there isn’t a Land of Hope and Glory future. Britain is wholly unable to raise sufficient investment capital internally. Even Thatcher realised in the end our economic future is dependent on foreign investment. Restriction on foreign ownership of British assets, once a sacred cow, has been totally abandoned. Even Morgan now belongs to an Italian Venture Capital outfit. That investment has been based over the last 40 years on EEC / EU membership.
The EU is problematic, but what we are doing is not the solution. We are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It does not have to be like that. The French are at the core of Britain’s difficulties with the EU. Listen to Dr Alice Weidel’s recent speech to the Bundestag which is blunt and penetrating, pro British and highly critical of Angela Merkel’s ‘post-1945’ attitude to this. Britain and Germany between them can sort this out. A strong relationship with Germany, in place of the mistrust and bogus triumphalism of the past, is the key to a future for both countries in the global marketplace. Bentley and Rolls-Royce, on a bigger scale, the pound retained along with London financial markets. As far as immigration and bureaucracy is concerned, may I suggest that those are OUR problems not theirs.
Vanden Saab said:
cardigankid said:
D&O - it is a given that we and many many others are never going to agree on this. The result of that is going to be a permanent fault line in the UK. It should never have happened. In Germany, where a new constitution was set up after the unfortunate Nazi business, laws were in essence of two types. One is settled on a simple majority. The other referred to as a Grundgesetz, or fundamental constitutional law, has to have a 70% majority.
David Cameron took a ridiculous risk but was only able to do so because the British constitution is unwritten. He judged that the Eurosceptics were a minority splinter group. I don’t need to tell you about that. What he then did was to change the constitution based on a bare majority in a referendum. That would not be regarded as lawful in most democratic countries, for a very good reason, which is that it places the foundations of the government at risk more or less on a whim and that is extremely dangerous and divisive.
However, and you may disagree, the Eurosceptics are indeed a minority splinter group. What I think happened was that no one really thought this vote would go Leave. Apart from anything else no one voting Leave actually knew what they were voting for, it could be one of many things with major unexpected implications as has now become clear. Leave organised a far more effective campaign than was expected, much of it misleading, xenophobic and reliant on the traditional last resort of the scoundrel, patriotism. They were helped by extraordinary arrogant statements by EU officials. A popular referendum is not a reference to the Delphic Oracle. It became a protest vote, as a result of which the future of the UK has been placed in the hands of what I, rightly or wrongly, see as a core of myopic Alf Garnett Little Englanders who have no vision plan or strategy for how this country is going to prosper, and furthermore don’t really care. However this core is, in my view, actually a very small number. Yet they are the ones driving us, through mischance and political miscalculation, towards poverty. If someone had even put forward a sensible plan and that had been voted on, I would accept it, but they didn’t. It was an act of gratuitous vandalism spurred by frustration with the institutions of the EU. After which the leaders just ran off, as vandals do.
Therefore, with the reality now ahead of us, and believing the current situation to be the result of a historical fluke, I think it is, in the absence of some kind of constitutional procedure, essential to have a further vote on much clearer grounds with the parties on each side explaining exactly what they propose to do.
Britain needs to ditch the post-imperialism and take stock of its real position in the world today. In Rome the drain covers are stamped SPQR. They are still after 1500 years waiting for the second coming. I have seen the hopes of a revival of ‘Great’ Britain raised and dashed more times than I like to recall. It’s over, there isn’t a Land of Hope and Glory future. Britain is wholly unable to raise sufficient investment capital internally. Even Thatcher realised in the end our economic future is dependent on foreign investment. Restriction on foreign ownership of British assets, once a sacred cow, has been totally abandoned. Even Morgan now belongs to an Italian Venture Capital outfit. That investment has been based over the last 40 years on EEC / EU membership.
The EU is problematic, but what we are doing is not the solution. We are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It does not have to be like that. The French are at the core of Britain’s difficulties with the EU. Listen to Dr Alice Weidel’s recent speech to the Bundestag which is blunt and penetrating, pro British and highly critical of Angela Merkel’s ‘post-1945’ attitude to this. Britain and Germany between them can sort this out. A strong relationship with Germany, in place of the mistrust and bogus triumphalism of the past, is the key to a future for both countries in the global marketplace. Bentley and Rolls-Royce, on a bigger scale, the pound retained along with London financial markets. As far as immigration and bureaucracy is concerned, may I suggest that those are OUR problems not theirs.
You lost me at 'no one knew what they were voting for'David Cameron took a ridiculous risk but was only able to do so because the British constitution is unwritten. He judged that the Eurosceptics were a minority splinter group. I don’t need to tell you about that. What he then did was to change the constitution based on a bare majority in a referendum. That would not be regarded as lawful in most democratic countries, for a very good reason, which is that it places the foundations of the government at risk more or less on a whim and that is extremely dangerous and divisive.
However, and you may disagree, the Eurosceptics are indeed a minority splinter group. What I think happened was that no one really thought this vote would go Leave. Apart from anything else no one voting Leave actually knew what they were voting for, it could be one of many things with major unexpected implications as has now become clear. Leave organised a far more effective campaign than was expected, much of it misleading, xenophobic and reliant on the traditional last resort of the scoundrel, patriotism. They were helped by extraordinary arrogant statements by EU officials. A popular referendum is not a reference to the Delphic Oracle. It became a protest vote, as a result of which the future of the UK has been placed in the hands of what I, rightly or wrongly, see as a core of myopic Alf Garnett Little Englanders who have no vision plan or strategy for how this country is going to prosper, and furthermore don’t really care. However this core is, in my view, actually a very small number. Yet they are the ones driving us, through mischance and political miscalculation, towards poverty. If someone had even put forward a sensible plan and that had been voted on, I would accept it, but they didn’t. It was an act of gratuitous vandalism spurred by frustration with the institutions of the EU. After which the leaders just ran off, as vandals do.
Therefore, with the reality now ahead of us, and believing the current situation to be the result of a historical fluke, I think it is, in the absence of some kind of constitutional procedure, essential to have a further vote on much clearer grounds with the parties on each side explaining exactly what they propose to do.
Britain needs to ditch the post-imperialism and take stock of its real position in the world today. In Rome the drain covers are stamped SPQR. They are still after 1500 years waiting for the second coming. I have seen the hopes of a revival of ‘Great’ Britain raised and dashed more times than I like to recall. It’s over, there isn’t a Land of Hope and Glory future. Britain is wholly unable to raise sufficient investment capital internally. Even Thatcher realised in the end our economic future is dependent on foreign investment. Restriction on foreign ownership of British assets, once a sacred cow, has been totally abandoned. Even Morgan now belongs to an Italian Venture Capital outfit. That investment has been based over the last 40 years on EEC / EU membership.
The EU is problematic, but what we are doing is not the solution. We are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It does not have to be like that. The French are at the core of Britain’s difficulties with the EU. Listen to Dr Alice Weidel’s recent speech to the Bundestag which is blunt and penetrating, pro British and highly critical of Angela Merkel’s ‘post-1945’ attitude to this. Britain and Germany between them can sort this out. A strong relationship with Germany, in place of the mistrust and bogus triumphalism of the past, is the key to a future for both countries in the global marketplace. Bentley and Rolls-Royce, on a bigger scale, the pound retained along with London financial markets. As far as immigration and bureaucracy is concerned, may I suggest that those are OUR problems not theirs.
youtube.com/Cassiusdx
I think that should be it. She may represent AfD but at least she is talking sense which for historic reasons hasn’t often happened in the Bundestag. She also correctly identifies that Michel Barnier was sent to do a hatchet job on Britain with the obvious consequences.
I think that should be it. She may represent AfD but at least she is talking sense which for historic reasons hasn’t often happened in the Bundestag. She also correctly identifies that Michel Barnier was sent to do a hatchet job on Britain with the obvious consequences.
chrispmartha said:
Vanden Saab said:
cardigankid said:
D&O - it is a given that we and many many others are never going to agree on this. The result of that is going to be a permanent fault line in the UK. It should never have happened. In Germany, where a new constitution was set up after the unfortunate Nazi business, laws were in essence of two types. One is settled on a simple majority. The other referred to as a Grundgesetz, or fundamental constitutional law, has to have a 70% majority.
David Cameron took a ridiculous risk but was only able to do so because the British constitution is unwritten. He judged that the Eurosceptics were a minority splinter group. I don’t need to tell you about that. What he then did was to change the constitution based on a bare majority in a referendum. That would not be regarded as lawful in most democratic countries, for a very good reason, which is that it places the foundations of the government at risk more or less on a whim and that is extremely dangerous and divisive.
However, and you may disagree, the Eurosceptics are indeed a minority splinter group. What I think happened was that no one really thought this vote would go Leave. Apart from anything else no one voting Leave actually knew what they were voting for, it could be one of many things with major unexpected implications as has now become clear. Leave organised a far more effective campaign than was expected, much of it misleading, xenophobic and reliant on the traditional last resort of the scoundrel, patriotism. They were helped by extraordinary arrogant statements by EU officials. A popular referendum is not a reference to the Delphic Oracle. It became a protest vote, as a result of which the future of the UK has been placed in the hands of what I, rightly or wrongly, see as a core of myopic Alf Garnett Little Englanders who have no vision plan or strategy for how this country is going to prosper, and furthermore don’t really care. However this core is, in my view, actually a very small number. Yet they are the ones driving us, through mischance and political miscalculation, towards poverty. If someone had even put forward a sensible plan and that had been voted on, I would accept it, but they didn’t. It was an act of gratuitous vandalism spurred by frustration with the institutions of the EU. After which the leaders just ran off, as vandals do.
Therefore, with the reality now ahead of us, and believing the current situation to be the result of a historical fluke, I think it is, in the absence of some kind of constitutional procedure, essential to have a further vote on much clearer grounds with the parties on each side explaining exactly what they propose to do.
Britain needs to ditch the post-imperialism and take stock of its real position in the world today. In Rome the drain covers are stamped SPQR. They are still after 1500 years waiting for the second coming. I have seen the hopes of a revival of ‘Great’ Britain raised and dashed more times than I like to recall. It’s over, there isn’t a Land of Hope and Glory future. Britain is wholly unable to raise sufficient investment capital internally. Even Thatcher realised in the end our economic future is dependent on foreign investment. Restriction on foreign ownership of British assets, once a sacred cow, has been totally abandoned. Even Morgan now belongs to an Italian Venture Capital outfit. That investment has been based over the last 40 years on EEC / EU membership.
The EU is problematic, but what we are doing is not the solution. We are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It does not have to be like that. The French are at the core of Britain’s difficulties with the EU. Listen to Dr Alice Weidel’s recent speech to the Bundestag which is blunt and penetrating, pro British and highly critical of Angela Merkel’s ‘post-1945’ attitude to this. Britain and Germany between them can sort this out. A strong relationship with Germany, in place of the mistrust and bogus triumphalism of the past, is the key to a future for both countries in the global marketplace. Bentley and Rolls-Royce, on a bigger scale, the pound retained along with London financial markets. As far as immigration and bureaucracy is concerned, may I suggest that those are OUR problems not theirs.
You lost me at 'no one knew what they were voting for'David Cameron took a ridiculous risk but was only able to do so because the British constitution is unwritten. He judged that the Eurosceptics were a minority splinter group. I don’t need to tell you about that. What he then did was to change the constitution based on a bare majority in a referendum. That would not be regarded as lawful in most democratic countries, for a very good reason, which is that it places the foundations of the government at risk more or less on a whim and that is extremely dangerous and divisive.
However, and you may disagree, the Eurosceptics are indeed a minority splinter group. What I think happened was that no one really thought this vote would go Leave. Apart from anything else no one voting Leave actually knew what they were voting for, it could be one of many things with major unexpected implications as has now become clear. Leave organised a far more effective campaign than was expected, much of it misleading, xenophobic and reliant on the traditional last resort of the scoundrel, patriotism. They were helped by extraordinary arrogant statements by EU officials. A popular referendum is not a reference to the Delphic Oracle. It became a protest vote, as a result of which the future of the UK has been placed in the hands of what I, rightly or wrongly, see as a core of myopic Alf Garnett Little Englanders who have no vision plan or strategy for how this country is going to prosper, and furthermore don’t really care. However this core is, in my view, actually a very small number. Yet they are the ones driving us, through mischance and political miscalculation, towards poverty. If someone had even put forward a sensible plan and that had been voted on, I would accept it, but they didn’t. It was an act of gratuitous vandalism spurred by frustration with the institutions of the EU. After which the leaders just ran off, as vandals do.
Therefore, with the reality now ahead of us, and believing the current situation to be the result of a historical fluke, I think it is, in the absence of some kind of constitutional procedure, essential to have a further vote on much clearer grounds with the parties on each side explaining exactly what they propose to do.
Britain needs to ditch the post-imperialism and take stock of its real position in the world today. In Rome the drain covers are stamped SPQR. They are still after 1500 years waiting for the second coming. I have seen the hopes of a revival of ‘Great’ Britain raised and dashed more times than I like to recall. It’s over, there isn’t a Land of Hope and Glory future. Britain is wholly unable to raise sufficient investment capital internally. Even Thatcher realised in the end our economic future is dependent on foreign investment. Restriction on foreign ownership of British assets, once a sacred cow, has been totally abandoned. Even Morgan now belongs to an Italian Venture Capital outfit. That investment has been based over the last 40 years on EEC / EU membership.
The EU is problematic, but what we are doing is not the solution. We are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It does not have to be like that. The French are at the core of Britain’s difficulties with the EU. Listen to Dr Alice Weidel’s recent speech to the Bundestag which is blunt and penetrating, pro British and highly critical of Angela Merkel’s ‘post-1945’ attitude to this. Britain and Germany between them can sort this out. A strong relationship with Germany, in place of the mistrust and bogus triumphalism of the past, is the key to a future for both countries in the global marketplace. Bentley and Rolls-Royce, on a bigger scale, the pound retained along with London financial markets. As far as immigration and bureaucracy is concerned, may I suggest that those are OUR problems not theirs.
The Government in March 2016 published a document outlining 6 possible alternatives to staying in the EU …
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/2016081...
Including this one...
UK Gov said:
if we could not reach agreement with the EU on a new arrangement, our trading arrangements would revert to WTO rules. This would provide the most complete break with the EU. It does not entail accepting free movement, budgetary contributions or implementing EU rules. But it would cause a major economic shock to the UK. WTO rules mean that the EU, and all countries with which we currently have trade deals, would have no choice but to apply WTO tariffs on exports from the UK – putting our companies at a competitive disadvantage. Meanwhile, the UK would face a difficult choice between either raising tariffs on imports from the EU or lowering tariffs on imports from all countries. Raising tariffs would have knock on effects on UK jobs and incomes, as well as on the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for international investment. Lowering tariffs would deny the UK revenue, and undermine our negotiating position in future trade deals.
Now about that we didn't know b
ksFrance does not and has never wanted Britain butting in on its private Marshall Plan. They cannot see that this is doomed to failure, and Brexit accelerates this. However if Britain thinks it can stand aloof from this in a repetition of the supposed splendid isolation of the 19th century it is in for a nasty shock. Instability across Europe has always spelt trouble for the UK.
cardigankid said:
D&O - it is a given that we and many many others are never going to agree on this. The result of that is going to be a permanent fault line in the UK. It should never have happened. In Germany, where a new constitution was set up after the unfortunate Nazi business, laws were in essence of two types. One is settled on a simple majority. The other referred to as a Grundgesetz, or fundamental constitutional law, has to have a 70% majority.
David Cameron took a ridiculous risk but was only able to do so because the British constitution is unwritten. He judged that the Eurosceptics were a minority splinter group. I don’t need to tell you about that. What he then did was to change the constitution based on a bare majority in a referendum. That would not be regarded as lawful in most democratic countries, for a very good reason, which is that it places the foundations of the government at risk more or less on a whim and that is extremely dangerous and divisive.
However, and you may disagree, the Eurosceptics are indeed a minority splinter group. What I think happened was that no one really thought this vote would go Leave. Apart from anything else no one voting Leave actually knew what they were voting for, it could be one of many things with major unexpected implications as has now become clear. Leave organised a far more effective campaign than was expected, much of it misleading, xenophobic and reliant on the traditional last resort of the scoundrel, patriotism. They were helped by extraordinary arrogant statements by EU officials. A popular referendum is not a reference to the Delphic Oracle. It became a protest vote, as a result of which the future of the UK has been placed in the hands of what I, rightly or wrongly, see as a core of myopic Alf Garnett Little Englanders who have no vision plan or strategy for how this country is going to prosper, and furthermore don’t really care. However this core is, in my view, actually a very small number. Yet they are the ones driving us, through mischance and political miscalculation, towards poverty. If someone had even put forward a sensible plan and that had been voted on, I would accept it, but they didn’t. It was an act of gratuitous vandalism spurred by frustration with the institutions of the EU. After which the leaders just ran off, as vandals do.
Therefore, with the reality now ahead of us, and believing the current situation to be the result of a historical fluke, I think it is, in the absence of some kind of constitutional procedure, essential to have a further vote on much clearer grounds with the parties on each side explaining exactly what they propose to do.
Britain needs to ditch the post-imperialism and take stock of its real position in the world today. In Rome the drain covers are stamped SPQR. They are still after 1500 years waiting for the second coming. I have seen the hopes of a revival of ‘Great’ Britain raised and dashed more times than I like to recall. It’s over, there isn’t a Land of Hope and Glory future. Britain is wholly unable to raise sufficient investment capital internally. Even Thatcher realised in the end our economic future is dependent on foreign investment. Restriction on foreign ownership of British assets, once a sacred cow, has been totally abandoned. Even Morgan now belongs to an Italian Venture Capital outfit. That investment has been based over the last 40 years on EEC / EU membership.
The EU is problematic, but what we are doing is not the solution. We are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It does not have to be like that. The French are at the core of Britain’s difficulties with the EU. Listen to Dr Alice Weidel’s recent speech to the Bundestag which is blunt and penetrating, pro British and highly critical of Angela Merkel’s ‘post-1945’ attitude to this. Britain and Germany between them can sort this out. A strong relationship with Germany, in place of the mistrust and bogus triumphalism of the past, is the key to a future for both countries in the global marketplace. Bentley and Rolls-Royce, on a bigger scale, the pound retained along with London financial markets. As far as immigration and bureaucracy is concerned, may I suggest that those are OUR problems not theirs.
With that sort of constitutional arrangement we never would have joined the EC without a super majority anyway.David Cameron took a ridiculous risk but was only able to do so because the British constitution is unwritten. He judged that the Eurosceptics were a minority splinter group. I don’t need to tell you about that. What he then did was to change the constitution based on a bare majority in a referendum. That would not be regarded as lawful in most democratic countries, for a very good reason, which is that it places the foundations of the government at risk more or less on a whim and that is extremely dangerous and divisive.
However, and you may disagree, the Eurosceptics are indeed a minority splinter group. What I think happened was that no one really thought this vote would go Leave. Apart from anything else no one voting Leave actually knew what they were voting for, it could be one of many things with major unexpected implications as has now become clear. Leave organised a far more effective campaign than was expected, much of it misleading, xenophobic and reliant on the traditional last resort of the scoundrel, patriotism. They were helped by extraordinary arrogant statements by EU officials. A popular referendum is not a reference to the Delphic Oracle. It became a protest vote, as a result of which the future of the UK has been placed in the hands of what I, rightly or wrongly, see as a core of myopic Alf Garnett Little Englanders who have no vision plan or strategy for how this country is going to prosper, and furthermore don’t really care. However this core is, in my view, actually a very small number. Yet they are the ones driving us, through mischance and political miscalculation, towards poverty. If someone had even put forward a sensible plan and that had been voted on, I would accept it, but they didn’t. It was an act of gratuitous vandalism spurred by frustration with the institutions of the EU. After which the leaders just ran off, as vandals do.
Therefore, with the reality now ahead of us, and believing the current situation to be the result of a historical fluke, I think it is, in the absence of some kind of constitutional procedure, essential to have a further vote on much clearer grounds with the parties on each side explaining exactly what they propose to do.
Britain needs to ditch the post-imperialism and take stock of its real position in the world today. In Rome the drain covers are stamped SPQR. They are still after 1500 years waiting for the second coming. I have seen the hopes of a revival of ‘Great’ Britain raised and dashed more times than I like to recall. It’s over, there isn’t a Land of Hope and Glory future. Britain is wholly unable to raise sufficient investment capital internally. Even Thatcher realised in the end our economic future is dependent on foreign investment. Restriction on foreign ownership of British assets, once a sacred cow, has been totally abandoned. Even Morgan now belongs to an Italian Venture Capital outfit. That investment has been based over the last 40 years on EEC / EU membership.
The EU is problematic, but what we are doing is not the solution. We are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It does not have to be like that. The French are at the core of Britain’s difficulties with the EU. Listen to Dr Alice Weidel’s recent speech to the Bundestag which is blunt and penetrating, pro British and highly critical of Angela Merkel’s ‘post-1945’ attitude to this. Britain and Germany between them can sort this out. A strong relationship with Germany, in place of the mistrust and bogus triumphalism of the past, is the key to a future for both countries in the global marketplace. Bentley and Rolls-Royce, on a bigger scale, the pound retained along with London financial markets. As far as immigration and bureaucracy is concerned, may I suggest that those are OUR problems not theirs.
The rest is just trotting out the same old clichés about ill informed bigots voting in anger.
Every letter and spirit of the law was followed by pro Remain PM Cameron in setting up the referendum. He could have made the case for a super majority. It was suggested at the time and rejected by Cameron. The referendum bill was passed by parliament and approved by the electoral commission as it was. Both campaigns were hard fought and both used stretched the facts to breaking point in making their case. As happens in elections.
You're simply crying foul because you don't like the result.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Sunday 7th April 17:35
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff