All these links, the winners knew exactly what they were voting for including all these stats and so on, they allowed for it all. What they have no excuse for is to say the equivalent of 'nobody knows' and 'wait and see'. Those who voted brexit knew, because they accuse anybody who suggests otherwise of being disrespectful.
On this note Seth, I’m still fully expecting quite a few people in my social circle who voted brexit to come out with the ‘we weren’t given all the facts’ argument should brexit turn out to be the disaster more and more people are predicting. I’m not saying this is all brexiters, or generalising, I just expect that to be a standard line we hear a lot, post brexit, should it have an adverse affect
After that, I expect to hear a lot of blame being laid at the Tory party re: how they’ve conducted negotiations (which to an extent I agree), but ultimately I feel that because this was such a monumental choice, if it does turn out to be detrimental, I would hope that the people who I know who voted for it, actually take some responsibility and say ‘we made our bed, we’ve now got to lie in it’, and refrain from whinging or complaining that ‘we’ haven’t made it work
Or.
They say we were in for 40 years, so we have to be out for 40 years to see what's what.
All these links, the winners knew exactly what they were voting for including all these stats and so on, they allowed for it all. What they have no excuse for is to say the equivalent of 'nobody knows' and 'wait and see'. Those who voted brexit knew, because they accuse anybody who suggests otherwise of being disrespectful.
On this note Seth, I’m still fully expecting quite a few people in my social circle who voted brexit to come out with the ‘we weren’t given all the facts’ argument should brexit turn out to be the disaster more and more people are predicting. I’m not saying this is all brexiters, or generalising, I just expect that to be a standard line we hear a lot, post brexit, should it have an adverse affect
After that, I expect to hear a lot of blame being laid at the Tory party re: how they’ve conducted negotiations (which to an extent I agree), but ultimately I feel that because this was such a monumental choice, if it does turn out to be detrimental, I would hope that the people who I know who voted for it, actually take some responsibility and say ‘we made our bed, we’ve now got to lie in it’, and refrain from whinging or complaining that ‘we’ haven’t made it work
Let's be honest about this. It's all going to be the EU's fault.
Those people that have trumpeted the anti-EU, "eurosceptic" view for forty years are never going to turn their ire somewhere else, even if - especially if - Brexit turns out to be the economic suicide that has been apparent for a long time. It's always going to be the EU's fault.
If we leave and the economy performs adequately or better, it will be because we left. But if the economy fails to deliver the sunny uplands we were promised, it will be because of the EU. It will never, NEVER be the fault of the people that could see the bus coming, but refused to step out of the way.
Don't worry. It'll all be fine. It turns out that the data that shows we will be considerably worse off if we leave doesn't exist. And is unlikely to exist as Ministers haven't signed it off. Phew!
All these links, the winners knew exactly what they were voting for including all these stats and so on, they allowed for it all. What they have no excuse for is to say the equivalent of 'nobody knows' and 'wait and see'. Those who voted brexit knew, because they accuse anybody who suggests otherwise of being disrespectful.
On this note Seth, I’m still fully expecting quite a few people in my social circle who voted brexit to come out with the ‘we weren’t given all the facts’ argument should brexit turn out to be the disaster more and more people are predicting. I’m not saying this is all brexiters, or generalising, I just expect that to be a standard line we hear a lot, post brexit, should it have an adverse affect
After that, I expect to hear a lot of blame being laid at the Tory party re: how they’ve conducted negotiations (which to an extent I agree), but ultimately I feel that because this was such a monumental choice, if it does turn out to be detrimental, I would hope that the people who I know who voted for it, actually take some responsibility and say ‘we made our bed, we’ve now got to lie in it’, and refrain from whinging or complaining that ‘we’ haven’t made it work
Nope, I expect the "remoaners" will get the blame for not mucking in, supporting their country etc. As if we.clukd do anything different
Moggy and his pal probably weren't expecting there to be a recording of the imaginary conversation behind their staged question in the House this week...
Moggy and his pal probably weren't expecting there to be a recording of the imaginary conversation behind their staged question in the House this week...
A quarter of the population does not equal "The British people".
Nor does the 45% who voed to remain in 1975 in that case
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. No one ever unequivocally said that 100% of the British people were happy to be in the EU. Yet Brexiters and the Tories act like every single British person wants to leave the EU when only one in four, based on a fraudulent non-binding poll nearly two years ago, have stated such an opinion.
A quarter of the population does not equal "The British people".
Nor does the 45% who voed to remain in 1975 in that case
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. No one ever unequivocally said that 100% of the British people were happy to be in the EU. Yet Brexiters and the Tories act like every single British person wants to leave the EU when only one in four, based on a fraudulent non-binding poll nearly two years ago, have stated such an opinion.
Not every single person, just the majority of those that could be bothered to vote.
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
1. "deliver on what the British people asked us to do, which is leaving the European Union"
2. " taking back control of our money, our borders and our laws"
Has she/the Tories learnt nothing from the last election?
Coallition of chaos, strong and stable, Brexit means Brexit, taking back control, Project Fear, Red White & Blue Brexit, deep & special relationship, getting on with the job, open and generous...now Global Britain...
If we could export meaningless Tory slogans we'd probably be ok after Brexit.
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy. The problem is our inept and lazy politicians couldn't figure out that the basic issue is the country is divided and simply decided to widen those divisions further by basically saying half the voters are not entitled to democratic representation. They should have considered the result for what it represented rather than as a black and white result and gone back to the drawing board for a better way forward. In the words of Nigel Farage, a 52-48 would mean unfinished business.
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
Especially when there were multiple different Brexits on offer... some will have wanted to leave the single market, some will have wanted to stay in (as suggested by leading Brexit figures in the media) and many other dividing factors.
To claim any version of Brexit is the cast iron will of the people is simply wrong.
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy.
So, one man has 52 apples and another man has 48 apples. Who has the most apples?
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy.
What’s your views on unions calling a strike? Is it ok to go with the majority who voted or should it be over 50% of those available to vote?
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy.
So, one man has 52 apples and another man has 48 apples. Who has the most apples?
One group has 52 red apples. The other has 48 green apples.
The group of 52 is split into 20 Braeburn, 15 Fuji and 17 Gala.
Clearly the group with the most apples is Braeburn.
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy.
So, one man has 52 apples and another man has 48 apples. Who has the most apples?
Are these English Granny Smiths or French Golden Delicious?
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy.
What’s your views on unions calling a strike? Is it ok to go with the majority who voted or should it be over 50% of those available to vote?
Not really comparable is it. And honestly I don't think a majority should be forced to go with the minority opinion.
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy.
So, one man has 52 apples and another man has 48 apples. Who has the most apples?
Does one man get to steal all the other apples just because he has more apples?
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy.
So, one man has 52 apples and another man has 48 apples. Who has the most apples?
One group has 52 red apples. The other has 48 green apples.
The group of 52 is split into 20 Braeburn, 15 Fuji and 17 Gala.
Clearly the group with the most apples is Braeburn.
I really have no idea. What I do know though is that if they eat them all, they'll be shitting through the eye of a needle for days.
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy.
What’s your views on unions calling a strike? Is it ok to go with the majority who voted or should it be over 50% of those available to vote?
Not really comparable is it. And honestly I don't think a majority should be forced to go with the minority opinion.
I think it's comparable.........
Or what about how many general elections have there been where more than 50% of the electorate have voted for a party to take power? Should we only have a government made up of MP's who combined have received more than 50% of the available votes by the electorate?
I don't like the outcome anymore than you (and I get all the points of it was a binding vote etc) but until we have laws etc that force everyone who can vote to do so it's always going to be a majority of those who voted that 'win' in any form of election/referendum etc.
What about Scotland, did over 50% of the possible voters vote to remain part of the UK?
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
It is year since I outlined my view of the challenges many face and the life experiences which might drive their response to such challenges.
I have read the many contributions and mean no disrespect in recalling 2 films.
"Kingdom of Heaven" portrays a Saracen & Crusader conflict over Jersulam saluting both sides feverish belief in their remit as their "God wills it."
"Passengers" depicts a man facing a lifetime of isolation engaging an android with a set of "solutions" to be advised "Jim, these are not robot questions".
Some paint a picture of significant & valid concerns but beyond barriers to trade in some markets many are not "EU" questions while the idea any government can deliver a worthy Brexit follows a belief system approaching those in that religious conflict.
The "rebel" vote in Parliament was important. MPs, secured a legal right to debate the terms of our EU departure, thus testing this leap of faith, a moment of clarity in a sea of fluff. Nobody empowered a cabal of squabbling government ministers to squirrel away its intent until it is a "fait accompli". There is nothing new here, we have been negotiating with the EU for 40yrs!
We are all entitled to our opinions as to how we improve our lives and in a democratic society able to make our own legal determination in seeking to secure a better future for ourselves, our families and our society. In making such decisions we face 3 issues a) how well we are informed b) who we entrust with the changes we seek c) can they deliver?
Yet even after THE "breakthrough" we not only do not have consensus as to what Brexit specifically should mean we have no consensus on the reliability/ relevance of any data upon which to base any opinion.
An "Agreement", designed to mean all things to all men, in hours, proved not to be worth the paper it was written on. Thus the debate has stayed in the winner/ loser category as we remain resigned to arguing on the basis of a variety of "analysis" subject to our own value set filters as a host of chattering voices offer an inexhaustible supply of "noise".
We know leaving the EU has not been done.
It can be done. A positive "initiative" can lead to a new sense of purpose, confidence & prosperity IF DRIVEN BY THE SUBSTANCE of compelling new opportunities, defined strategies & policies to deliver benefits beyond the status quo.
Scaremongering (on either side) & political entrenchment aside can anyone, even now offer 10 key bullet point tangible gains as to how Brexit will deliver to a) enhance the lives of UK citizenry b) be delivered and the ultimate price we and future generations will pay?
Where money is to be made people will find a way but just where is any "new" money on the table and who benefits? Many trading into the EU have their solution with EU domiciled representation. Much of the business I led 18yrs ago will switch to the Dublin office. Business risk management demands it.
The truth is NO ONE KNOWS how this will turn out in the short, medium or long term. The scope is too far reaching and the variables are "off the chart".
One thing has been confirmed - the amateurish leaps into the dark anticipated from a struggling political elite. Any vague light at the end of the tunnel is distorted if not extinguished by smoke & mirrors.
There is NO evidence ANY politician has the ability to manage the risk. Not one politician offers a compelling vision, evidences a coherent driving force for change or a pathway to deliver new opportunities for business & commerce and a better future for us all. Where is there a risk/ reward equation?
Where are the champions for change? Where are these driving new dynamic elements for delivering this new momentum, to exploit these boundless new opportunities from which UK citizenry will benefit?
Is it just to be "we will be alright - they need us more than we need them"? Is "make me an offer" all we can contribute? What are these deals we cannot do today? Why are these swathes of investors not investing in the UK today? What is the new value proposition? What is our new freedom to deliver?
"Show me the money".
What we do know is, on the brink of undermining the well being of 1.8mn people in NI in stating they can no longer guarantee the GFA, HMG in 48hrs guarantee borders with not a red line in sight only to then demur on such assurance.
As of today the EU & UK are diminishing the rights of 4.5mn "overseas" residents guilty of nothing more than lawfully pursuing their lives in the best interests of their families & the societies in which they reside. Who benefits?
The first stage Brexit agreement confirmed the task as beyond the capacity of government. It merely kicked the conundrum of the CU and its border freedoms down the road. NOBODY has any answers. Had I walked into a boardroom with such a document after 18 months I would have been sacked.
Now even "the Exit bill drafted" has been positioned as constitutionally inept.
Posturing continues to abound. Over the next 12 months as the pressure mounts we will see an ever more fractious clusterfuck of double speak, empty assurances, vacillation & "U turns" - all the hallmarks of a failing project.
What is the value of change where everybody loses?
We have ourselves to blame. We voted for this. We are can wring our hands and point fingers but in the timeframe the scale of the task was always beyond any government. I mean a dog even ate Davis's homework.
The immovable objects remain. If you; - want unrestricted trade borders, unrestricted people borders come with it - want to trade in their market you will play by their rules & pay their price
I fear it will be a price many a household may not be able to afford.
I understand the political fears, the federal state, the imposition of EU centric ideology. Such fears MAY come to pass with/ without our involvement but on what planet would you not want to be at the table to fight or influence such ambitions every step of the way. Who do we serve by stumbling away?
References to an imperfect democracy are valid. They apply to every democracy across the EU and beyond. Citizenry across the EU face the same problems and divided societies.
The UK is to blame for its own divisions.
I recently rediscovered my late fathers collection of Giles Cartoon Annuals dating to the 1960's. Brilliantly witty, social challenges leap from many a page. Yet the Electorate have voted in largely the same governments for 50yrs with just one socialist adminstration Wilson/ Callaghan (twice). History will view the Blair/ Brown / Murdoch triumvirate as anything but.
View the NHS. We nearly all champion a free at the point of delivery service yet know there is a price someone has to pay. A political football for decades we vote in governments who refuse to fund the NHS adequately by increasing specific taxation to pay for it. Why? WE the electorate will not pay the taxes. We just vote in the same governments and get to throw the bricks when they fail.
We have done the same with Brexit. We listed the things we do not like about the EU, told the government we need to leave while wanting access to the benefits that have served our prosperity for 40yrs. IT IS NOT within their gift.
Unlike the NHS we will have to pay the price.
What is within our gift is to deliver a government to serve all of our society within the compromises of a global society. It is for national government to manage those compromises to best serve the societies they represent.
The world faces the challenges of reducing natural resources, pollution of air & sea, global migration, population growth, terrorist insurgency, increased automation & robotics. Forgive me if I see an apparently rudderless, fractured, island community with minimal natural resources standing alone in a sea of uncertainty and self interest, while somewhat quixotic, as really not the most attractive place to be.
Excellent summarising paragraph grapevine. My own personal opinion is that the world is getting smaller and we need to be in the thick of it together (as do all nations), rather than appearing as isolationists, which for me is what I think the impression Brexit has given
Will be interested to see the considered responses of those that don't. May i respectfully ask that people do not quote your entire post, in order to do so?
Comments
They say we were in for 40 years, so we have to be out for 40 years to see what's what.
Those people that have trumpeted the anti-EU, "eurosceptic" view for forty years are never going to turn their ire somewhere else, even if - especially if - Brexit turns out to be the economic suicide that has been apparent for a long time. It's always going to be the EU's fault.
If we leave and the economy performs adequately or better, it will be because we left. But if the economy fails to deliver the sunny uplands we were promised, it will be because of the EU. It will never, NEVER be the fault of the people that could see the bus coming, but refused to step out of the way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42889904
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42911538
A pair of lying pricks to be blunt.
1. "deliver on what the British people asked us to do, which is leaving the European Union"
2. " taking back control of our money, our borders and our laws"
Has she/the Tories learnt nothing from the last election?
It's kinda how democracy works.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
Coallition of chaos, strong and stable, Brexit means Brexit, taking back control, Project Fear, Red White & Blue Brexit, deep & special relationship, getting on with the job, open and generous...now Global Britain...If we could export meaningless Tory slogans we'd probably be ok after Brexit.
To claim any version of Brexit is the cast iron will of the people is simply wrong.
The group of 52 is split into 20 Braeburn, 15 Fuji and 17 Gala.
Clearly the group with the most apples is Braeburn.
Or what about how many general elections have there been where more than 50% of the electorate have voted for a party to take power? Should we only have a government made up of MP's who combined have received more than 50% of the available votes by the electorate?
I don't like the outcome anymore than you (and I get all the points of it was a binding vote etc) but until we have laws etc that force everyone who can vote to do so it's always going to be a majority of those who voted that 'win' in any form of election/referendum etc.
What about Scotland, did over 50% of the possible voters vote to remain part of the UK?
I have read the many contributions and mean no disrespect in recalling 2 films.
"Kingdom of Heaven" portrays a Saracen & Crusader conflict over Jersulam saluting both sides feverish belief in their remit as their "God wills it."
"Passengers" depicts a man facing a lifetime of isolation engaging an android with a set of "solutions" to be advised "Jim, these are not robot questions".
Some paint a picture of significant & valid concerns but beyond barriers to trade in some markets many are not "EU" questions while the idea any government can deliver a worthy Brexit follows a belief system approaching those in that religious conflict.
The "rebel" vote in Parliament was important. MPs, secured a legal right to debate the terms of our EU departure, thus testing this leap of faith, a moment of clarity in a sea of fluff. Nobody empowered a cabal of squabbling government ministers to squirrel away its intent until it is a "fait accompli". There is nothing new here, we have been negotiating with the EU for 40yrs!
We are all entitled to our opinions as to how we improve our lives and in a democratic society able to make our own legal determination in seeking to secure a better future for ourselves, our families and our society. In making such decisions we face 3 issues a) how well we are informed b) who we entrust with the changes we seek c) can they deliver?
Yet even after THE "breakthrough" we not only do not have consensus as to what Brexit specifically should mean we have no consensus on the reliability/ relevance of any data upon which to base any opinion.
An "Agreement", designed to mean all things to all men, in hours, proved not to be worth the paper it was written on. Thus the debate has stayed in the winner/ loser category as we remain resigned to arguing on the basis of a variety of "analysis" subject to our own value set filters as a host of chattering voices offer an inexhaustible supply of "noise".
We know leaving the EU has not been done.
It can be done. A positive "initiative" can lead to a new sense of purpose, confidence & prosperity IF DRIVEN BY THE SUBSTANCE of compelling new opportunities, defined strategies & policies to deliver benefits beyond the status quo.
Scaremongering (on either side) & political entrenchment aside can anyone, even now offer 10 key bullet point tangible gains as to how Brexit will deliver to a) enhance the lives of UK citizenry b) be delivered and the ultimate price we and future generations will pay?
Where money is to be made people will find a way but just where is any "new" money on the table and who benefits? Many trading into the EU have their solution with EU domiciled representation. Much of the business I led 18yrs ago will switch to the Dublin office. Business risk management demands it.
The truth is NO ONE KNOWS how this will turn out in the short, medium or long term. The scope is too far reaching and the variables are "off the chart".
One thing has been confirmed - the amateurish leaps into the dark anticipated from a struggling political elite. Any vague light at the end of the tunnel is distorted if not extinguished by smoke & mirrors.
There is NO evidence ANY politician has the ability to manage the risk. Not one politician offers a compelling vision, evidences a coherent driving force for change or a pathway to deliver new opportunities for business & commerce and a better future for us all. Where is there a risk/ reward equation?
Where are the champions for change? Where are these driving new dynamic elements for delivering this new momentum, to exploit these boundless new opportunities from which UK citizenry will benefit?
Is it just to be "we will be alright - they need us more than we need them"? Is "make me an offer" all we can contribute? What are these deals we cannot do today? Why are these swathes of investors not investing in the UK today? What is the new value proposition? What is our new freedom to deliver?
"Show me the money".
What we do know is, on the brink of undermining the well being of 1.8mn people in NI in stating they can no longer guarantee the GFA, HMG in 48hrs guarantee borders with not a red line in sight only to then demur on such assurance.
As of today the EU & UK are diminishing the rights of 4.5mn "overseas" residents guilty of nothing more than lawfully pursuing their lives in the best interests of their families & the societies in which they reside. Who benefits?
The first stage Brexit agreement confirmed the task as beyond the capacity of government. It merely kicked the conundrum of the CU and its border freedoms down the road. NOBODY has any answers. Had I walked into a boardroom with such a document after 18 months I would have been sacked.
Now even "the Exit bill drafted" has been positioned as constitutionally inept.
Posturing continues to abound. Over the next 12 months as the pressure mounts we will see an ever more fractious clusterfuck of double speak, empty assurances, vacillation & "U turns" - all the hallmarks of a failing project.
What is the value of change where everybody loses?
We have ourselves to blame. We voted for this. We are can wring our hands and point fingers but in the timeframe the scale of the task was always beyond any government. I mean a dog even ate Davis's homework.
The immovable objects remain. If you;
- want unrestricted trade borders, unrestricted people borders come with it
- want to trade in their market you will play by their rules & pay their price
I fear it will be a price many a household may not be able to afford.
I understand the political fears, the federal state, the imposition of EU centric ideology. Such fears MAY come to pass with/ without our involvement but on what planet would you not want to be at the table to fight or influence such ambitions every step of the way. Who do we serve by stumbling away?
References to an imperfect democracy are valid. They apply to every democracy across the EU and beyond. Citizenry across the EU face the same problems and divided societies.
The UK is to blame for its own divisions.
I recently rediscovered my late fathers collection of Giles Cartoon Annuals dating to the 1960's. Brilliantly witty, social challenges leap from many a page. Yet the Electorate have voted in largely the same governments for 50yrs with just one socialist adminstration Wilson/ Callaghan (twice). History will view the Blair/ Brown / Murdoch triumvirate as anything but.
View the NHS. We nearly all champion a free at the point of delivery service yet know there is a price someone has to pay. A political football for decades we vote in governments who refuse to fund the NHS adequately by increasing specific taxation to pay for it. Why? WE the electorate will not pay the taxes. We just vote in the same governments and get to throw the bricks when they fail.
We have done the same with Brexit. We listed the things we do not like about the EU, told the government we need to leave while wanting access to the benefits that have served our prosperity for 40yrs. IT IS NOT within their gift.
Unlike the NHS we will have to pay the price.
What is within our gift is to deliver a government to serve all of our society within the compromises of a global society. It is for national government to manage those compromises to best serve the societies they represent.
The world faces the challenges of reducing natural resources, pollution of air & sea, global migration, population growth, terrorist insurgency, increased automation & robotics. Forgive me if I see an apparently rudderless, fractured, island community with minimal natural resources standing alone in a sea of uncertainty and self interest, while somewhat quixotic, as really not the most attractive place to be.
Will be interested to see the considered responses of those that don't. May i respectfully ask that people do not quote your entire post, in order to do so?