So it sounds like May’s “Chequers compromise” which would almost certainly be rejected by Brussels now won’t even make it that far after she has caved it to Brexiteers and has agreed to amendments to the Customs Bill - some of which seem to directly contradict the plan she came up with a couple of weeks ago.
Absolute shambles.
You can support it or not, but this is beyond belief. I really can't see how this shambles of a government can continue. This is people's livliehoods at stake here, whether you support Brexit or Remain. I think it is coming down to the two things - leaving with nothing or not leaving at all. What is needed, and everybody should support this, is a clarification of what people actually want via a clear second people's vote. Whatever the outcome, politicians need to be aware what the people are instructing.
I honestly think what is needed is for Labour to now back a Norway deal:
- it honours the referendum result to leave the EU - it’s achievable in the timescales (assuming we get the two year “implementation period still”) - it solves the Irish border question - it protects our economy from a cliff edge scenario - it would probably get the support of enough Tory remainer MPs and Lords to pass through Westminster - it’s a proposal that the EU will actually accept (unlike Chequers which was never going to be accepted anyway) - it won’t provide an end to free movement
This should have been the approach from the start, of the nation is still unsatisfied then we can change the relationship in the future but this now all pointing towards a no deal scenario which will be an absolute disaster.
Labour are playing it long on this because they are worried about the views of the Labour voting hard brexiteers mainly in the north. It's your last bullet point that is their big conundrum
I agree, freedom of movement is the big issue in all of this. It stems back to Cameron’s “I’ll reduce immigration to tens of thousands” things a few years ago which legitimised the idea that immigration is bad.
If I were Labour leader I would change the lens and re-cast immigration as a good thing that creates a net benefit to our country economically, socially and culturally. Not only is it true but that way you no are no longer shackled to Cameron’s mistake meaning you are now free to come to a sensible deal with the EU which keeps the four freedoms intact.
Great post. Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
It is unarguable that immigration is good for the country. Always has been and always will be.
History shows us that the hard right have always used immigrants as a scape goat and focus to move on their divisive hate filled agenda.
So it sounds like May’s “Chequers compromise” which would almost certainly be rejected by Brussels now won’t even make it that far after she has caved it to Brexiteers and has agreed to amendments to the Customs Bill - some of which seem to directly contradict the plan she came up with a couple of weeks ago.
Absolute shambles.
You can support it or not, but this is beyond belief. I really can't see how this shambles of a government can continue. This is people's livliehoods at stake here, whether you support Brexit or Remain. I think it is coming down to the two things - leaving with nothing or not leaving at all. What is needed, and everybody should support this, is a clarification of what people actually want via a clear second people's vote. Whatever the outcome, politicians need to be aware what the people are instructing.
I honestly think what is needed is for Labour to now back a Norway deal:
- it honours the referendum result to leave the EU - it’s achievable in the timescales (assuming we get the two year “implementation period still”) - it solves the Irish border question - it protects our economy from a cliff edge scenario - it would probably get the support of enough Tory remainer MPs and Lords to pass through Westminster - it’s a proposal that the EU will actually accept (unlike Chequers which was never going to be accepted anyway) - it won’t provide an end to free movement
This should have been the approach from the start, of the nation is still unsatisfied then we can change the relationship in the future but this now all pointing towards a no deal scenario which will be an absolute disaster.
Labour are playing it long on this because they are worried about the views of the Labour voting hard brexiteers mainly in the north. It's your last bullet point that is their big conundrum
I agree, freedom of movement is the big issue in all of this. It stems back to Cameron’s “I’ll reduce immigration to tens of thousands” things a few years ago which legitimised the idea that immigration is bad.
If I were Labour leader I would change the lens and re-cast immigration as a good thing that creates a net benefit to our country economically, socially and culturally. Not only is it true but that way you no are no longer shackled to Cameron’s mistake meaning you are now free to come to a sensible deal with the EU which keeps the four freedoms intact.
Great post. Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
It is unarguable that immigration is good for the country. Always has been and always will be.
History shows us that the hard right have always used immigrants as a scape goat and focus to move on their divisive hate filled agenda.
It is arguable.
Armed robbery is good for the country. It frees up money that was just sitting in vaults and it has been proven time and time again stolen money is spent quicker which benefits the economy.
Then argue it. You say it's arguable, and then you just follow up with a silly statement that presumably you think is equivalent in some way.
Put forth a counter argument. I'll even help you out with a couple of starters. You could argue that large scale immigration to a small geographic area stretches services and lowers quality of service for all, whilst also leading to social integration issues.
Of course the counter argument to that is that austerity has had a far bigger effect on service provision and immigration has just highlighted, whilst social integration takes time and can be mitigated by better social planning (though that's something else that austerity will have meant no funding for).
What is totally clear is that our economy is reliant on a steady stream of immigrants and it will take a lot of time, planning and investment to change that. As the economy currently stands all Brexit can possibly achieve is a switch from Central/Eastern European immigrants for African/Asian immigrants.
So it sounds like May’s “Chequers compromise” which would almost certainly be rejected by Brussels now won’t even make it that far after she has caved it to Brexiteers and has agreed to amendments to the Customs Bill - some of which seem to directly contradict the plan she came up with a couple of weeks ago.
Absolute shambles.
You can support it or not, but this is beyond belief. I really can't see how this shambles of a government can continue. This is people's livliehoods at stake here, whether you support Brexit or Remain. I think it is coming down to the two things - leaving with nothing or not leaving at all. What is needed, and everybody should support this, is a clarification of what people actually want via a clear second people's vote. Whatever the outcome, politicians need to be aware what the people are instructing.
I honestly think what is needed is for Labour to now back a Norway deal:
- it honours the referendum result to leave the EU - it’s achievable in the timescales (assuming we get the two year “implementation period still”) - it solves the Irish border question - it protects our economy from a cliff edge scenario - it would probably get the support of enough Tory remainer MPs and Lords to pass through Westminster - it’s a proposal that the EU will actually accept (unlike Chequers which was never going to be accepted anyway) - it won’t provide an end to free movement
This should have been the approach from the start, of the nation is still unsatisfied then we can change the relationship in the future but this now all pointing towards a no deal scenario which will be an absolute disaster.
Labour are playing it long on this because they are worried about the views of the Labour voting hard brexiteers mainly in the north. It's your last bullet point that is their big conundrum
I agree, freedom of movement is the big issue in all of this. It stems back to Cameron’s “I’ll reduce immigration to tens of thousands” things a few years ago which legitimised the idea that immigration is bad.
If I were Labour leader I would change the lens and re-cast immigration as a good thing that creates a net benefit to our country economically, socially and culturally. Not only is it true but that way you no are no longer shackled to Cameron’s mistake meaning you are now free to come to a sensible deal with the EU which keeps the four freedoms intact.
Great post. Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
No doubt and 95% of CL members would probably agree with you. It's convincing voters in other parts of the country that is Labour's big problem.
So it sounds like May’s “Chequers compromise” which would almost certainly be rejected by Brussels now won’t even make it that far after she has caved it to Brexiteers and has agreed to amendments to the Customs Bill - some of which seem to directly contradict the plan she came up with a couple of weeks ago.
Absolute shambles.
You can support it or not, but this is beyond belief. I really can't see how this shambles of a government can continue. This is people's livliehoods at stake here, whether you support Brexit or Remain. I think it is coming down to the two things - leaving with nothing or not leaving at all. What is needed, and everybody should support this, is a clarification of what people actually want via a clear second people's vote. Whatever the outcome, politicians need to be aware what the people are instructing.
I honestly think what is needed is for Labour to now back a Norway deal:
- it honours the referendum result to leave the EU - it’s achievable in the timescales (assuming we get the two year “implementation period still”) - it solves the Irish border question - it protects our economy from a cliff edge scenario - it would probably get the support of enough Tory remainer MPs and Lords to pass through Westminster - it’s a proposal that the EU will actually accept (unlike Chequers which was never going to be accepted anyway) - it won’t provide an end to free movement
This should have been the approach from the start, of the nation is still unsatisfied then we can change the relationship in the future but this now all pointing towards a no deal scenario which will be an absolute disaster.
Labour are playing it long on this because they are worried about the views of the Labour voting hard brexiteers mainly in the north. It's your last bullet point that is their big conundrum
I agree, freedom of movement is the big issue in all of this. It stems back to Cameron’s “I’ll reduce immigration to tens of thousands” things a few years ago which legitimised the idea that immigration is bad.
If I were Labour leader I would change the lens and re-cast immigration as a good thing that creates a net benefit to our country economically, socially and culturally. Not only is it true but that way you no are no longer shackled to Cameron’s mistake meaning you are now free to come to a sensible deal with the EU which keeps the four freedoms intact.
Great post. Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
It is unarguable that immigration is good for the country. Always has been and always will be.
History shows us that the hard right have always used immigrants as a scape goat and focus to move on their divisive hate filled agenda.
It is arguable.
Armed robbery is good for the country. It frees up money that was just sitting in vaults and it has been proven time and time again stolen money is spent quicker which benefits the economy.
So it sounds like May’s “Chequers compromise” which would almost certainly be rejected by Brussels now won’t even make it that far after she has caved it to Brexiteers and has agreed to amendments to the Customs Bill - some of which seem to directly contradict the plan she came up with a couple of weeks ago.
Absolute shambles.
You can support it or not, but this is beyond belief. I really can't see how this shambles of a government can continue. This is people's livliehoods at stake here, whether you support Brexit or Remain. I think it is coming down to the two things - leaving with nothing or not leaving at all. What is needed, and everybody should support this, is a clarification of what people actually want via a clear second people's vote. Whatever the outcome, politicians need to be aware what the people are instructing.
I honestly think what is needed is for Labour to now back a Norway deal:
- it honours the referendum result to leave the EU - it’s achievable in the timescales (assuming we get the two year “implementation period still”) - it solves the Irish border question - it protects our economy from a cliff edge scenario - it would probably get the support of enough Tory remainer MPs and Lords to pass through Westminster - it’s a proposal that the EU will actually accept (unlike Chequers which was never going to be accepted anyway) - it won’t provide an end to free movement
This should have been the approach from the start, of the nation is still unsatisfied then we can change the relationship in the future but this now all pointing towards a no deal scenario which will be an absolute disaster.
Labour are playing it long on this because they are worried about the views of the Labour voting hard brexiteers mainly in the north. It's your last bullet point that is their big conundrum
I agree, freedom of movement is the big issue in all of this. It stems back to Cameron’s “I’ll reduce immigration to tens of thousands” things a few years ago which legitimised the idea that immigration is bad.
If I were Labour leader I would change the lens and re-cast immigration as a good thing that creates a net benefit to our country economically, socially and culturally. Not only is it true but that way you no are no longer shackled to Cameron’s mistake meaning you are now free to come to a sensible deal with the EU which keeps the four freedoms intact.
Great post. Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
No doubt and 95% of CL members would probably agree with you. It's convincing voters in other parts of the country that is Labour's big problem.
Especially parts that have very little immigration!
Clarity and reason is off the table for everybody. We all have to find a way to get it back.
I have sympathy for this view. However, I have met @Dippenhall and like the man, we have things in common like Charlton and outrage at the Olympic Stadium fiasco. You would think there is something to build on there, but he is implacably opposed to my view, and me to his. There is no common ground, and any way he can rightly say his side won, there is no need for any rapprochement the results are in. In that context what would even be the first baby steps towards any common ground?
A vote with some clarity would not be easy for either side to argue against.
Clarity and reason is off the table for everybody. We all have to find a way to get it back.
I have sympathy for this view. However, I have met @Dippenhall and like the man, we have things in common like Charlton and outrage at the Olympic Stadium fiasco. You would think there is something to build on there, but he is implacably opposed to my view, and me to his. There is no common ground, and any way he can rightly say his side won, there is no need for any rapprochement the results are in. In that context what would even be the first baby steps towards any common ground?
A vote with some clarity would not be easy for either side to argue against.
Genuine question - how would you word the question on a second refrerebdum ballot?
So it sounds like May’s “Chequers compromise” which would almost certainly be rejected by Brussels now won’t even make it that far after she has caved it to Brexiteers and has agreed to amendments to the Customs Bill - some of which seem to directly contradict the plan she came up with a couple of weeks ago.
Absolute shambles.
You can support it or not, but this is beyond belief. I really can't see how this shambles of a government can continue. This is people's livliehoods at stake here, whether you support Brexit or Remain. I think it is coming down to the two things - leaving with nothing or not leaving at all. What is needed, and everybody should support this, is a clarification of what people actually want via a clear second people's vote. Whatever the outcome, politicians need to be aware what the people are instructing.
I honestly think what is needed is for Labour to now back a Norway deal:
- it honours the referendum result to leave the EU - it’s achievable in the timescales (assuming we get the two year “implementation period still”) - it solves the Irish border question - it protects our economy from a cliff edge scenario - it would probably get the support of enough Tory remainer MPs and Lords to pass through Westminster - it’s a proposal that the EU will actually accept (unlike Chequers which was never going to be accepted anyway) - it won’t provide an end to free movement
This should have been the approach from the start, of the nation is still unsatisfied then we can change the relationship in the future but this now all pointing towards a no deal scenario which will be an absolute disaster.
Labour are playing it long on this because they are worried about the views of the Labour voting hard brexiteers mainly in the north. It's your last bullet point that is their big conundrum
I agree, freedom of movement is the big issue in all of this. It stems back to Cameron’s “I’ll reduce immigration to tens of thousands” things a few years ago which legitimised the idea that immigration is bad.
If I were Labour leader I would change the lens and re-cast immigration as a good thing that creates a net benefit to our country economically, socially and culturally. Not only is it true but that way you no are no longer shackled to Cameron’s mistake meaning you are now free to come to a sensible deal with the EU which keeps the four freedoms intact.
Great post. Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
It is unarguable that immigration is good for the country. Always has been and always will be.
History shows us that the hard right have always used immigrants as a scape goat and focus to move on their divisive hate filled agenda.
It is arguable.
Armed robbery is good for the country. It frees up money that was just sitting in vaults and it has been proven time and time again stolen money is spent quicker which benefits the economy.
So immigration is like armed robbery?!
Knob.
I apologise. I clearly over estimated your education level.
Someone claimed something is unarguable. Everthing is arguable. I showed how a criminal act could be argued as a good thing.
In terms of overall economic benefit to the country. It is unarguable. There are other agendas at play of course.
I would start it with yes or no - then have a secondary question for all to answer - If the vote is to leave the EU, do you wish for the government to try to negotiate trading links to the EU similar to Norway or Do you want the government to leave with no agreements on trade or borders?
Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!
I would start it with yes or no - then have a secondary question for all to answer - If the vote is to leave the EU, do you wish for the government to try to negotiate trading links to the EU similar to Norway or Do you want the government to leave with no agreements on trade or borders?
Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!
Would take an education campaign in order to get voters to understand the implications of either choice or others.
The complexity of asking the question is one reason why I doubt there will be a second referendum. Views are entrenched at this point and trying to get the electorate to understand exactly what they were voting for would be very difficult.
The obvious solution is for parliament to have the final vote.
I think the best campaign would involve getting younger people to vote and to understand it's their future at stake. If the turnout amongst under 30s improves the result would almost certainly be a clear Remain. Focusing on the positives of free movement and co-operation with Europe and not just the economic perils of Leaving would help. Younger people have much more of a positive view of the EU and need to be included. It feels like most of the rhetoric is aimed towards pleasing the older Daily Mail/Express generation.
Latest immigration figures shows that EU net immigration is falling (though still over 100k for 2017) but non EU immigration is rising. Many of the non EU immigrants are students but their numbers should be relatively stable. Most of the EU immigrants have jobs to go to (huge drop in the numbers looking for work).
The Government could "solve" immigration numbers to their target in a stroke by stopping all non EU immigration... Ain't going to happen is it?
I agree there's pros and cons to immigration and there is a serious discussion to be had. We just haven't been having it.
I would start it with yes or no - then have a secondary question for all to answer - If the vote is to leave the EU, do you wish for the government to try to negotiate trading links to the EU similar to Norway or Do you want the government to leave with no agreements on trade or borders?
Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!
The complexity of asking the question is one reason why I doubt there will be a second referendum. Views are entrenched at this point and trying to get the electorate to understand exactly what they were voting for would be very difficult.
The obvious solution is for parliament to have the final vote.
Whatever. It’s a sorry mess of our own making.
Agreed - leaving the EU is a vastly complicated proposition, as we are learning, with myriad different outcomes and potential results from a leave vote.
Referendums are, by their nature, supposed to be simple “yes” or “no” questions. Take the recent Irish abortion referendum. The legislation that would result from a “yes” vote and its full consequences were laid out objectively prior to the vote, everyone knew what they were voting on and what their vote would result in.
This whole problem started from using a referendum as the method of public vote when it really should have been through traditional parliamentary politics (I.e the electorate voting for a particular manifesto) and I highly doubt a second referendum would solve any of he problems that we now face.
I would start it with yes or no - then have a secondary question for all to answer - If the vote is to leave the EU, do you wish for the government to try to negotiate trading links to the EU similar to Norway or Do you want the government to leave with no agreements on trade or borders?
Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!
The complexity of asking the question is one reason why I doubt there will be a second referendum. Views are entrenched at this point and trying to get the electorate to understand exactly what they were voting for would be very difficult.
The obvious solution is for parliament to have the final vote.
Whatever. It’s a sorry mess of our own making.
Agreed - leaving the EU is a vastly complicated proposition, as we are learning, with myriad different outcomes and potential results from a leave vote.
Referendums are, by their nature, supposed to be simple “yes” or “no” questions. Take the recent Irish abortion referendum. The legislation that would result from a “yes” vote and its full consequences were laid out objectively prior to the vote, everyone knew what they were voting on and what their vote would result in.
This whole problem started from using a referendum as the method of public vote when it really should have been through traditional parliamentary politics (I.e the electorate voting for a particular manifesto) and I highly doubt a second referendum would solve any of he problems that we now face.
The referendum was was used to subvert Parliament and was all about managing unruly Tory MPs. Cameron wanted to put Conservative party Eurosceptics back in their box. The "IN / OUT" question was supposed to provide such a stark, scary choice that Remain would be the only possible result. The British are generally conservative (with a small 'c'), he figured it was a safe bet the status quo option would win. He forgot that the British can also be contrary buggers!
I would start it with yes or no - then have a secondary question for all to answer - If the vote is to leave the EU, do you wish for the government to try to negotiate trading links to the EU similar to Norway or Do you want the government to leave with no agreements on trade or borders?
Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!
The complexity of asking the question is one reason why I doubt there will be a second referendum. Views are entrenched at this point and trying to get the electorate to understand exactly what they were voting for would be very difficult.
The obvious solution is for parliament to have the final vote.
Whatever. It’s a sorry mess of our own making.
Agreed - leaving the EU is a vastly complicated proposition, as we are learning, with myriad different outcomes and potential results from a leave vote.
Referendums are, by their nature, supposed to be simple “yes” or “no” questions. Take the recent Irish abortion referendum. The legislation that would result from a “yes” vote and its full consequences were laid out objectively prior to the vote, everyone knew what they were voting on and what their vote would result in.
This whole problem started from using a referendum as the method of public vote when it really should have been through traditional parliamentary politics (I.e the electorate voting for a particular manifesto) and I highly doubt a second referendum would solve any of he problems that we now face.
The referendum was was used to subvert Parliament and was all about managing unruly Tory MPs. Cameron wanted to put Conservative party Eurosceptics back in their box. The "IN / OUT" question was supposed to provide such a stark, scary choice that Remain would be the only possible result. The British are generally conservative (with a small 'c'), he figured it was a safe bet the status quo option would win. He forgot that the British can also be contrary buggers!
He also called it because the Tories were leaking votes to UKIP faster than anyone could count. The only way Cameron could claw their votes back was to offer a referendum. Shows just how out of touch the Tories are with the public that they didn’t even contemplate a leave vote.
Clarity and reason is off the table for everybody. We all have to find a way to get it back.
I have sympathy for this view. However, I have met @Dippenhall and like the man, we have things in common like Charlton and outrage at the Olympic Stadium fiasco. You would think there is something to build on there, but he is implacably opposed to my view, and me to his. There is no common ground, and any way he can rightly say his side won, there is no need for any rapprochement the results are in. In that context what would even be the first baby steps towards any common ground?
A vote with some clarity would not be easy for either side to argue against.
Genuine question - how would you word the question on a second refrerebdum ballot?
Dear voter, would you like to **** the economy or not?
I would start it with yes or no - then have a secondary question for all to answer - If the vote is to leave the EU, do you wish for the government to try to negotiate trading links to the EU similar to Norway or Do you want the government to leave with no agreements on trade or borders?
Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!
The complexity of asking the question is one reason why I doubt there will be a second referendum. Views are entrenched at this point and trying to get the electorate to understand exactly what they were voting for would be very difficult.
The obvious solution is for parliament to have the final vote.
Whatever. It’s a sorry mess of our own making.
Agreed - leaving the EU is a vastly complicated proposition, as we are learning, with myriad different outcomes and potential results from a leave vote.
Referendums are, by their nature, supposed to be simple “yes” or “no” questions. Take the recent Irish abortion referendum. The legislation that would result from a “yes” vote and its full consequences were laid out objectively prior to the vote, everyone knew what they were voting on and what their vote would result in.
This whole problem started from using a referendum as the method of public vote when it really should have been through traditional parliamentary politics (I.e the electorate voting for a particular manifesto) and I highly doubt a second referendum would solve any of he problems that we now face.
I hope he posts up his World at One interview, that was even better, left the interviewer flailing around, and absolutely slaughtered Kate Hoey who had preceded him.
Kate Hoey was utterly dreadful.She was denial squared, equivocation tripled, quadruple deluded. If Hoey's defence of the 'vote leave' criminal behaviour is the best they can do, then the leaders of that criminal 'vote leave' campaign are in for a very rough ride. The result remains the result though, however discredited it is. Never mind, blue passports and all that..........
Kate Hoey was utterly dreadful.She was denial squared, equivocation tripled, quadruple deluded. If Hoey's defence of the 'vote leave' criminal behaviour is the best they can do, then the leaders of that criminal 'vote leave' campaign are in for a very rough ride. The result remains the result though, however discredited it is. Never mind, blue passports and all that..........
Short term pain, long term gain! We need to get our country back and take control of our borders. It's imperative we regain our sovereignty and any possible economic costs are a price worth paying.
Communist loony left BBC trying to silence debate.
''No doubt and 95% of CL members would probably agree with you. It's convincing voters in other parts of the country that is Labour's big problem.''
95% you sure, think you're having a laugh!
I agree with you JWC. I think immigration is great so long as it is controlled and matched with a similar amount of emigration.
Norway was beautiful a week ago with of course its very low density of population and sparsely populated areas.
Only Holland and Belgium are countries that have a higher density than us other than some small states e.g. Monaco Malta etc and of course so much of our population is concentrated in the South East.
This country is fast becoming a tarmaced over multi pot hole of a shit hole.
Comments
History shows us that the hard right have always used immigrants as a scape goat and focus to move on their divisive hate filled agenda.
Put forth a counter argument. I'll even help you out with a couple of starters. You could argue that large scale immigration to a small geographic area stretches services and lowers quality of service for all, whilst also leading to social integration issues.
Of course the counter argument to that is that austerity has had a far bigger effect on service provision and immigration has just highlighted, whilst social integration takes time and can be mitigated by better social planning (though that's something else that austerity will have meant no funding for).
What is totally clear is that our economy is reliant on a steady stream of immigrants and it will take a lot of time, planning and investment to change that. As the economy currently stands all Brexit can possibly achieve is a switch from Central/Eastern European immigrants for African/Asian immigrants.
Knob.
Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!
It’s going to have to be simpler than that Mutts.
The obvious solution is for parliament to have the final vote.
Whatever. It’s a sorry mess of our own making.
The Government could "solve" immigration numbers to their target in a stroke by stopping all non EU immigration... Ain't going to happen is it?
I agree there's pros and cons to immigration and there is a serious discussion to be had. We just haven't been having it.
Referendums are, by their nature, supposed to be simple “yes” or “no” questions. Take the recent Irish abortion referendum. The legislation that would result from a “yes” vote and its full consequences were laid out objectively prior to the vote, everyone knew what they were voting on and what their vote would result in.
This whole problem started from using a referendum as the method of public vote when it really should have been through traditional parliamentary politics (I.e the electorate voting for a particular manifesto) and I highly doubt a second referendum would solve any of he problems that we now face.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44857317
I hope he posts up his World at One interview, that was even better, left the interviewer flailing around, and absolutely slaughtered Kate Hoey who had preceded him.
Respect, sir.
One courageous and principled dude. I just contributed.
If Hoey's defence of the 'vote leave' criminal behaviour is the best they can do, then the leaders of that criminal 'vote leave' campaign are in for a very rough ride.
The result remains the result though, however discredited it is.
Never mind, blue passports and all that..........
Communist loony left BBC trying to silence debate.
It's convincing voters in other parts of the country that is Labour's big problem.''
95% you sure, think you're having a laugh!
Norway was beautiful a week ago with of course its very low density of population and sparsely populated areas.
Only Holland and Belgium are countries that have a higher density than us other than some small states e.g. Monaco Malta etc and of course so much of our population is concentrated in the South East.
This country is fast becoming a tarmaced over multi pot hole of a shit hole.
Read that somewhere.