I'm also curious to know why those people who claim that the EU is "different to what we signed up to" when we confirmed accession to the EEC aren't in support of a Peoples Vote.
If you don't like the way our relationship with our European partners has changed over time, why wouldn't you want a vote on how it should be moving forward?
One vote was 41 years after the other, and was in response to an ever evolving European union and its institutions, the other is a rerun to fudge democracy 2 years after the original. I know you are being deliberately dense, but come on.... I think this is an example of what many of these faux intellectuals like yourself call "false equivalence"
An "ever evolving European Union and its institutions" is often given as a reason for Brexiters to vote leave. So, thank you for confirming my point for me.
It's a reasonable position. If the club we joined has changed, so that our relationship with it is different now, compared to how it was, then one might decide it's time to re-assess membership. And that's what we have done.
The realpolitik, however, means that there is a tension between those who see benefit of a close tie to the EU, its regulations and its opportunities (for example, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and the rest of the Cabinet) and those who want a complete, clean break, unencumbered by a "deal" (including backbench MPs like the members for North East Somerset and South Ruislip).
These two versions of Brexit - where Brexit means the UK no longer being a member of the EU - are poles apart. Which version did Michael Gove vote for? Or Nigel Farage? Or Jacob Rees Mogg? Answer: none of them. No-one had the option to vote on what version of Brexit they wanted. Do you want to be like Switzerland? Or Swaziland?
So the idea of a Peoples Vote is to allow those people who have a specific preference as to how the UK's relationship with the EU should work in the future get to have their say.
If we have a Peoples Vote, you and me and everyone else can register whether we are happy with the idea of crashing out or would prefer something less damaging. We will have had our say on exactly what our relationship with the EU should be. Something we haven't yet had.
Do you prefer to have a say, or no say @Huskaris? And please, if you can, just answer, and leave out the personal insults.
I'm also curious to know why those people who claim that the EU is "different to what we signed up to" when we confirmed accession to the EEC aren't in support of a Peoples Vote.
If you don't like the way our relationship with our European partners has changed over time, why wouldn't you want a vote on how it should be moving forward?
One vote was 41 years after the other, and was in response to an ever evolving European union and its institutions, the other is a rerun to fudge democracy 2 years after the original. I know you are being deliberately dense, but come on.... I think this is an example of what many of these faux intellectuals like yourself call "false equivalence"
An "ever evolving European Union and its institutions" is often given as a reason for Brexiters to vote leave. So, thank you for confirming my point for me.
It's a reasonable position. If the club we joined has changed, so that our relationship with it is different now, compared to how it was, then one might decide it's time to re-assess membership. And that's what we have done.
The realpolitik, however, means that there is a tension between those who see benefit of a close tie to the EU, its regulations (for example, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and the rest of the Cabinet) and those who want a complete, clean break, unencumbered by a "deal" (including backbench MPs like the members for North East Somerset and South Ruislip).
These two versions of Brexit - where Brexit means the UK no longer being a member of the EU - are poles apart. Which version did Michael Gove vote for? Or Nigel Farage? Or Jacob Rees Mogg? Answer: none of them. No-one had the option to vote on what version of Brexit they wanted. Do you want to be like Switzerland? Or Swaziland?
So the idea of a Peoples Vote is to allow those people who have a specific preference as to how the UK's relationship with the EU should work in the future get to have their say.
If we have a Peoples Vote, you and me and everyone else can register whether we are happy with the idea of crashing out or would prefer something less damaging. We will have had our say on exactly what our relationship with the EU should be. Something we haven't yet had.
Do you prefer to have a say, or no say @Huskaris? And please, if you can, just answer, and leave out the personal insults.
To be honest, no, I don't prefer to have a say, I don't like referendums and wish we never had one in the first place. I don't want us to leave but I believe that the mandate given by a referendum can only be overturned by a general election manifesto (something I hope happens this Autumn). Some sort of second referendum fudge, in my opinion, is an affront to democracy, and a large proportion of the nation will see through it. We might belittle those who voted Brexit as simple minded bug eyed loons, but the truth is they are a lot more like us than many like to think. They aren't all racist scumbags, the same way all Eastern Europeans aren't sitting round on benefits and mugging old ladies. They (and remainers like myself) will see through this second vote, and my main worry (as I have previously stated in a long boring post) is that I genuinely believe a second referendum would be won by Brexit by a bigger majority than before. That, for me, is dangerous.
Another referendum is not the answer. I am convinced that we are either going to hard Brexit, or not Brexit at all. I want to avoid hard Brexit (the only real Brexit) at all costs. It requires our politicians, the people we elect, to have the balls to stand up to the JRM and Boris Johnsons and tell them they are wrong, and stand on a manifesto that will keep us in the EU. That is the most democratic way to undermine democracy, which, if we are honest, is what we are conspiring to do here.
There, I have alienated everyone, I'll go and sit in the corner.
I wouldn't blanket anything - Tusk, Barnier and Junkers have not been elected by voters for example - not directly anyway. Mind you, the head of the civil service hasn't been elected in this country. Although the Civil Service isn't supposed to be political whereas I would argue the above are more so. Don't get me wrong, you can't elect everybody, but democracy seems to mean different things to different people, depending where they are standing.
I think you need to consider the positions held (and equivalent posts in the UK) to decide whether or not there is a democratic deficit.
Tusk, in some regards, is a mix of the Queen (acting as EU "Head of State") and Lord President of the Privy Council (chairing EU meetings), while Juncker is the Head of the Civil Service and Barnier is a Senior Civil Servant - where they differ from the UK model is that they all held political positions prior to their current careers.
Both Tusk and Juncker were appointed by EU leaders' vote in the Council, with Juncker's appointment being subject to approval by the EU Parliament (while Barnier, like some of those employed on the UK side, was appointed to fill a specific negotiating role).
There is little difference between the means of appointing Tusk and Juncker in comparison to other multinational organisations (including the UN - there's an element of horse trading by elected politcians, with varying degrees of edification).
It may not be perfect, but it's not noticeably anti-democratic, and the regular beauty contests associated with the selection process does allow for greater public scrutiny and pressure (via national governments and MEPs) than would be the case in the UK Civil Service.
Martin Selmayr's appointment was a total fix though.
As are most Senior civil service jobs in the UK
Whataboutism
Whilst there is definitely a whiff of nepotism about the manner of his elevation to the rank of Secretary General (I'm not overly impressed, but my understanding is that the process, in this case stayed [just] within the rules), there is nothing to indicate that Selmayr is anything other than competent and efficient - and he may very well have been the successful candidate in any event.
Unfortunately, it is probably true to say that, in terms of public sector appointments at least, preferred candidates find themselves remarkably successful in recruitment and promotion competitions - which is my excuse for not being head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the only other explanation being that it is something to do with me being a complete arse...
I'm also curious to know why those people who claim that the EU is "different to what we signed up to" when we confirmed accession to the EEC aren't in support of a Peoples Vote.
If you don't like the way our relationship with our European partners has changed over time, why wouldn't you want a vote on how it should be moving forward?
One vote was 41 years after the other, and was in response to an ever evolving European union and its institutions, the other is a rerun to fudge democracy 2 years after the original. I know you are being deliberately dense, but come on.... I think this is an example of what many of these faux intellectuals like yourself call "false equivalence"
An "ever evolving European Union and its institutions" is often given as a reason for Brexiters to vote leave. So, thank you for confirming my point for me.
It's a reasonable position. If the club we joined has changed, so that our relationship with it is different now, compared to how it was, then one might decide it's time to re-assess membership. And that's what we have done.
The realpolitik, however, means that there is a tension between those who see benefit of a close tie to the EU, its regulations (for example, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and the rest of the Cabinet) and those who want a complete, clean break, unencumbered by a "deal" (including backbench MPs like the members for North East Somerset and South Ruislip).
These two versions of Brexit - where Brexit means the UK no longer being a member of the EU - are poles apart. Which version did Michael Gove vote for? Or Nigel Farage? Or Jacob Rees Mogg? Answer: none of them. No-one had the option to vote on what version of Brexit they wanted. Do you want to be like Switzerland? Or Swaziland?
So the idea of a Peoples Vote is to allow those people who have a specific preference as to how the UK's relationship with the EU should work in the future get to have their say.
If we have a Peoples Vote, you and me and everyone else can register whether we are happy with the idea of crashing out or would prefer something less damaging. We will have had our say on exactly what our relationship with the EU should be. Something we haven't yet had.
Do you prefer to have a say, or no say @Huskaris? And please, if you can, just answer, and leave out the personal insults.
To be honest, no, I don't prefer to have a say, I don't like referendums and wish we never had one in the first place. I don't want us to leave but I believe that the mandate given by a referendum can only be overturned by a general election manifesto (something I hope happens this Autumn). Some sort of second referendum fudge, in my opinion, is an affront to democracy, and a large proportion of the nation will see through it. We might belittle those who voted Brexit as simple minded bug eyed loons, but the truth is they are a lot more like us than many like to think. They aren't all racist scumbags, the same way all Eastern Europeans aren't sitting round on benefits and mugging old ladies. They (and remainers like myself) will see through this second vote, and my main worry (as I have previously stated in a long boring post) is that I genuinely believe a second referendum would be won by Brexit by a bigger majority than before. That, for me, is dangerous.
Another referendum is not the answer. I am convinced that we are either going to hard Brexit, or not Brexit at all. I want to avoid hard Brexit (the only real Brexit) at all costs. It requires our politicians, the people we elect, to have the balls to stand up to the JRM and Boris Johnsons and tell them they are wrong, and stand on a manifesto that will keep us in the EU. That is the most democratic way to undermine democracy, which, if we are honest, is what we are conspiring to do here.
There, I have alienated everyone, I'll go and sit in the corner.
We have a particularly useless, self-serving bunch of politicians at present and they are not fit for purpose.
The referendum was ill thought out and Cameron bailed out at the first opportunity once the result didn't go his way. I don't believe most voters really understood the implications of Brexit when they voted - this is also true of the vast majority of MPs.
It's an utter farce and seems destined to drag on.
I wouldn't blanket anything - Tusk, Barnier and Junkers have not been elected by voters for example - not directly anyway. Mind you, the head of the civil service hasn't been elected in this country. Although the Civil Service isn't supposed to be political whereas I would argue the above are more so. Don't get me wrong, you can't elect everybody, but democracy seems to mean different things to different people, depending where they are standing.
I think you need to consider the positions held (and equivalent posts in the UK) to decide whether or not there is a democratic deficit.
Tusk, in some regards, is a mix of the Queen (acting as EU "Head of State") and Lord President of the Privy Council (chairing EU meetings), while Juncker is the Head of the Civil Service and Barnier is a Senior Civil Servant - where they differ from the UK model is that they all held political positions prior to their current careers.
Both Tusk and Juncker were appointed by EU leaders' vote in the Council, with Juncker's appointment being subject to approval by the EU Parliament (while Barnier, like some of those employed on the UK side, was appointed to fill a specific negotiating role).
There is little difference between the means of appointing Tusk and Juncker in comparison to other multinational organisations (including the UN - there's an element of horse trading by elected politcians, with varying degrees of edification).
It may not be perfect, but it's not noticeably anti-democratic, and the regular beauty contests associated with the selection process does allow for greater public scrutiny and pressure (via national governments and MEPs) than would be the case in the UK Civil Service.
Martin Selmayr's appointment was a total fix though.
As are most Senior civil service jobs in the UK
Whataboutism
Whilst there is definitely a whiff of nepotism about the manner of his elevation to the rank of Secretary General (I'm not overly impressed, but my understanding is that the process, in this cast stayed [just] within the rules), there is nothing to indicate that Selmayr is anything other than competent and efficient - and he may very well have been the successful candidate in any event.
Unfortunately, it is probably true to say that, in terms of public sector appointments at least, preferred candidates find themselves remarkably successful in recruitment and promotion competitions - which is my excuse for not being head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the only other explanation being that it is something to do with me being a complete arse...
It's not a question of his competence, it's his friends and his politics that mattered. Even the bovine and accepting European Parliament were angry about the circumstances of his appointment. So cross, they voted for a motion asking (nicely, I'm sure) for Selmayr's appointment to be reassessed. Unfortunately, the EU commission is not obliged in any way to act on the parliament's vote so guess what'll happen. Democracy in action.
I'm also curious to know why those people who claim that the EU is "different to what we signed up to" when we confirmed accession to the EEC aren't in support of a Peoples Vote.
If you don't like the way our relationship with our European partners has changed over time, why wouldn't you want a vote on how it should be moving forward?
One vote was 41 years after the other, and was in response to an ever evolving European union and its institutions, the other is a rerun to fudge democracy 2 years after the original. I know you are being deliberately dense, but come on.... I think this is an example of what many of these faux intellectuals like yourself call "false equivalence"
An "ever evolving European Union and its institutions" is often given as a reason for Brexiters to vote leave. So, thank you for confirming my point for me.
It's a reasonable position. If the club we joined has changed, so that our relationship with it is different now, compared to how it was, then one might decide it's time to re-assess membership. And that's what we have done.
The realpolitik, however, means that there is a tension between those who see benefit of a close tie to the EU, its regulations (for example, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and the rest of the Cabinet) and those who want a complete, clean break, unencumbered by a "deal" (including backbench MPs like the members for North East Somerset and South Ruislip).
These two versions of Brexit - where Brexit means the UK no longer being a member of the EU - are poles apart. Which version did Michael Gove vote for? Or Nigel Farage? Or Jacob Rees Mogg? Answer: none of them. No-one had the option to vote on what version of Brexit they wanted. Do you want to be like Switzerland? Or Swaziland?
So the idea of a Peoples Vote is to allow those people who have a specific preference as to how the UK's relationship with the EU should work in the future get to have their say.
If we have a Peoples Vote, you and me and everyone else can register whether we are happy with the idea of crashing out or would prefer something less damaging. We will have had our say on exactly what our relationship with the EU should be. Something we haven't yet had.
Do you prefer to have a say, or no say @Huskaris? And please, if you can, just answer, and leave out the personal insults.
To be honest, no, I don't prefer to have a say, I don't like referendums and wish we never had one in the first place. I don't want us to leave but I believe that the mandate given by a referendum can only be overturned by a general election manifesto (something I hope happens this Autumn). Some sort of second referendum fudge, in my opinion, is an affront to democracy, and a large proportion of the nation will see through it. We might belittle those who voted Brexit as simple minded bug eyed loons, but the truth is they are a lot more like us than many like to think. They aren't all racist scumbags, the same way all Eastern Europeans aren't sitting round on benefits and mugging old ladies. They (and remainers like myself) will see through this second vote, and my main worry (as I have previously stated in a long boring post) is that I genuinely believe a second referendum would be won by Brexit by a bigger majority than before. That, for me, is dangerous.
Another referendum is not the answer. I am convinced that we are either going to hard Brexit, or not Brexit at all. I want to avoid hard Brexit (the only real Brexit) at all costs. It requires our politicians, the people we elect, to have the balls to stand up to the JRM and Boris Johnsons and tell them they are wrong, and stand on a manifesto that will keep us in the EU. That is the most democratic way to undermine democracy, which, if we are honest, is what we are conspiring to do here.
There, I have alienated everyone, I'll go and sit in the corner.
We have a particularly useless, self-serving bunch of politicians at present and they are not fit for purpose.
The referendum was ill thought out and Cameron bailed out at the first opportunity once the result didn't go his way. I don't believe most voters really understood the implications of Brexit when they voted - this is also true of the vast majority of MPs.
It's an utter farce and seems destined to drag on.
I believe that we live in an era where the loud, self-serving politicians who are not fit for purpose that you rightfully mention are the ones that get heard the most. In an era of rolling news media, an MP who is willing to be a talking head and appear on every news broadcast going, gets a distinct advantage. Unfortunately a lot of the MPs who do good work for their constituents and the nation (the majority in my opinion) are often too busy fighting the good fight to be at the forefront of politics.
To your second point, the Brexit vote was always going to be too big a thing to be left to the public, I have met the public, and they are morons. That goes for leave and remain voters.
I'm also curious to know why those people who claim that the EU is "different to what we signed up to" when we confirmed accession to the EEC aren't in support of a Peoples Vote.
If you don't like the way our relationship with our European partners has changed over time, why wouldn't you want a vote on how it should be moving forward?
One vote was 41 years after the other, and was in response to an ever evolving European union and its institutions, the other is a rerun to fudge democracy 2 years after the original. I know you are being deliberately dense, but come on.... I think this is an example of what many of these faux intellectuals like yourself call "false equivalence"
An "ever evolving European Union and its institutions" is often given as a reason for Brexiters to vote leave. So, thank you for confirming my point for me.
It's a reasonable position. If the club we joined has changed, so that our relationship with it is different now, compared to how it was, then one might decide it's time to re-assess membership. And that's what we have done.
The realpolitik, however, means that there is a tension between those who see benefit of a close tie to the EU, its regulations (for example, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and the rest of the Cabinet) and those who want a complete, clean break, unencumbered by a "deal" (including backbench MPs like the members for North East Somerset and South Ruislip).
These two versions of Brexit - where Brexit means the UK no longer being a member of the EU - are poles apart. Which version did Michael Gove vote for? Or Nigel Farage? Or Jacob Rees Mogg? Answer: none of them. No-one had the option to vote on what version of Brexit they wanted. Do you want to be like Switzerland? Or Swaziland?
So the idea of a Peoples Vote is to allow those people who have a specific preference as to how the UK's relationship with the EU should work in the future get to have their say.
If we have a Peoples Vote, you and me and everyone else can register whether we are happy with the idea of crashing out or would prefer something less damaging. We will have had our say on exactly what our relationship with the EU should be. Something we haven't yet had.
Do you prefer to have a say, or no say @Huskaris? And please, if you can, just answer, and leave out the personal insults.
To be honest, no, I don't prefer to have a say, I don't like referendums and wish we never had one in the first place. I don't want us to leave but I believe that the mandate given by a referendum can only be overturned by a general election manifesto (something I hope happens this Autumn). Some sort of second referendum fudge, in my opinion, is an affront to democracy, and a large proportion of the nation will see through it. We might belittle those who voted Brexit as simple minded bug eyed loons, but the truth is they are a lot more like us than many like to think. They aren't all racist scumbags, the same way all Eastern Europeans aren't sitting round on benefits and mugging old ladies. They (and remainers like myself) will see through this second vote, and my main worry (as I have previously stated in a long boring post) is that I genuinely believe a second referendum would be won by Brexit by a bigger majority than before. That, for me, is dangerous.
Another referendum is not the answer. I am convinced that we are either going to hard Brexit, or not Brexit at all. I want to avoid hard Brexit (the only real Brexit) at all costs. It requires our politicians, the people we elect, to have the balls to stand up to the JRM and Boris Johnsons and tell them they are wrong, and stand on a manifesto that will keep us in the EU. That is the most democratic way to undermine democracy, which, if we are honest, is what we are conspiring to do here.
There, I have alienated everyone, I'll go and sit in the corner.
We have a particularly useless, self-serving bunch of politicians at present and they are not fit for purpose.
The referendum was ill thought out and Cameron bailed out at the first opportunity once the result didn't go his way. I don't believe most voters really understood the implications of Brexit when they voted - this is also true of the vast majority of MPs.
It's an utter farce and seems destined to drag on.
I believe that we live in an era where the loud, self-serving politicians who are not fit for purpose that you rightfully mention are the ones that get heard the most. In an era of rolling news media, an MP who is willing to be a talking head and appear on every news broadcast going, gets a distinct advantage. Unfortunately a lot of the MPs who do good work for their constituents and the nation (the majority in my opinion) are often too busy fighting the good fight to be at the forefront of politics.
To your second point, the Brexit vote was always going to be too big a thing to be left to the public, I have met the public, and they are morons. That goes for leave and remain voters.
The trouble with democracy is that most of us are incredibly ill-informed.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Maybe leave voters should pay more tax so that the remain voters can be compensated.
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Maybe leave voters should pay more tax so that the remain voters can be compensated.
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
And those non Blair voters could get their brothers, fathers, uncles back?
This is an interesting case and one worth keeping an eye on, potentially could be a new “Irish border” type scenario in the constitutional make up of the U.K. post Brexit should the Scottish government (which has the support of the Welsh and NI governments) win its case.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Maybe leave voters should pay more tax so that the remain voters can be compensated.
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
And those non Blair voters could get their brothers, fathers, uncles back?
Most of the Tories voted for it too. Only the Lib Dems, SNP and PC opposed it en masse. Although Corbyn, Abbott and Mcdonnell all opposed it.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Maybe leave voters should pay more tax so that the remain voters can be compensated.
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
It's not really how society works though, is it? Otherwise pacifists and those without children would also pay less tax.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Maybe leave voters should pay more tax so that the remain voters can be compensated.
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
It's not really how society works though, is it? Otherwise pacifists and those without children would also pay less tax.
But Brexiters and Tories should pay more in tax, it is only fair.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Maybe leave voters should pay more tax so that the remain voters can be compensated.
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
It's not really how society works though, is it? Otherwise pacifists and those without children would also pay less tax.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Maybe leave voters should pay more tax so that the remain voters can be compensated.
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
It's not really how society works though, is it? Otherwise pacifists and those without children would also pay less tax.
Heard a great quote from Andrew Castle this morning. He said 'all remainers who keep getting on leavers backs, are unintelligent know alls and liberal fascists'. First half of that i totally agree.
Heard a great quote from Andrew Castle this morning. He said 'all remainers who keep getting on leavers backs, are unintelligent know alls and liberal fascists'. First half of that i totally agree.
Heard a great quote from Andrew Castle this morning. He said 'all remainers who keep getting on leavers backs, are unintelligent know alls and liberal fascists'. First half of that i totally agree.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Maybe leave voters should pay more tax so that the remain voters can be compensated.
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
And those non Blair voters could get their brothers, fathers, uncles back?
Most of the Tories voted for it too. Only the Lib Dems, SNP and PC opposed it en masse. Although Corbyn, Abbott and Mcdonnell all opposed it.
Definitive whataboutery. And yet another example of why I'm a Liberal. voter.
Heard a great quote from Andrew Castle this morning. He said 'all remainers who keep getting on leavers backs, are unintelligent know alls and liberal fascists'. First half of that i totally agree.
He actually has nothing and I mean nothing of interest to anyone to say. In order to keep his job he just chooses to pick a fight and make outrageous comments.
Good for him I say. I’m sure if he could write an article he would be snapped up by the Daily Mail. I don’t believe he’s clever or opinionated enough.
Treason act should include people willfully damaging the country's economy. When we are all worse off, do Brexiters think we will shrug our shoulders and say oh well never mind! My bet is, within a couple of years you won't find anybody owning up to voting leave.
Maybe leave voters should pay more tax so that the remain voters can be compensated.
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
It's not really how society works though, is it? Otherwise pacifists and those without children would also pay less tax.
It was tongue in cheek - so borderline whoosh!
Hard to tell on this thread
If we could only agree a form of words that would allow a binding backstop arrangement that would help retain the existing frictionless borderline whooshes.....
Heard a great quote from Andrew Castle this morning. He said 'all remainers who keep getting on leavers backs, are unintelligent know alls and liberal fascists'. First half of that i totally agree.
Did he have a solution to the Irish border problem though?
Comments
It's a reasonable position. If the club we joined has changed, so that our relationship with it is different now, compared to how it was, then one might decide it's time to re-assess membership. And that's what we have done.
The realpolitik, however, means that there is a tension between those who see benefit of a close tie to the EU, its regulations and its opportunities (for example, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and the rest of the Cabinet) and those who want a complete, clean break, unencumbered by a "deal" (including backbench MPs like the members for North East Somerset and South Ruislip).
These two versions of Brexit - where Brexit means the UK no longer being a member of the EU - are poles apart. Which version did Michael Gove vote for? Or Nigel Farage? Or Jacob Rees Mogg? Answer: none of them. No-one had the option to vote on what version of Brexit they wanted. Do you want to be like Switzerland? Or Swaziland?
So the idea of a Peoples Vote is to allow those people who have a specific preference as to how the UK's relationship with the EU should work in the future get to have their say.
If we have a Peoples Vote, you and me and everyone else can register whether we are happy with the idea of crashing out or would prefer something less damaging. We will have had our say on exactly what our relationship with the EU should be. Something we haven't yet had.
Do you prefer to have a say, or no say @Huskaris? And please, if you can, just answer, and leave out the personal insults.
Another referendum is not the answer. I am convinced that we are either going to hard Brexit, or not Brexit at all. I want to avoid hard Brexit (the only real Brexit) at all costs. It requires our politicians, the people we elect, to have the balls to stand up to the JRM and Boris Johnsons and tell them they are wrong, and stand on a manifesto that will keep us in the EU. That is the most democratic way to undermine democracy, which, if we are honest, is what we are conspiring to do here.
There, I have alienated everyone, I'll go and sit in the corner.
Unfortunately, it is probably true to say that, in terms of public sector appointments at least, preferred candidates find themselves remarkably successful in recruitment and promotion competitions - which is my excuse for not being head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the only other explanation being that it is something to do with me being a complete arse...
The referendum was ill thought out and Cameron bailed out at the first opportunity once the result didn't go his way. I don't believe most voters really understood the implications of Brexit when they voted - this is also true of the vast majority of MPs.
It's an utter farce and seems destined to drag on.
To your second point, the Brexit vote was always going to be too big a thing to be left to the public, I have met the public, and they are morons. That goes for leave and remain voters.
@seth plum
If (not certain) we leave then within 5 years the great unwashed will be crying out to rejoin.
This is an interesting case and one worth keeping an eye on, potentially could be a new “Irish border” type scenario in the constitutional make up of the U.K. post Brexit should the Scottish government (which has the support of the Welsh and NI governments) win its case.
And yet another example of why I'm a Liberal. voter.
:-)
Forgive me, Chips mate, I just couldnt resist...
He actually has nothing and I mean nothing of interest to anyone to say. In order to keep his job he just chooses to pick a fight and make outrageous comments.
Good for him I say. I’m sure if he could write an article he would be snapped up by the Daily Mail. I don’t believe he’s clever or opinionated enough.