Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The influence of the EU on Britain.

1411412414416417607

Comments

  • In the same day's Irish Times, Diarmaid Ferriter had an interesting article (if less surprising in what it revealed), happily not behind a paywall, on the border in Ireland: https://irishtimes.com/opinion/diarmaid-ferriter-england-has-always-used-the-border-for-its-own-gain-1.3644648.
  • McBobbin said:

    “There were only three possibilities. One was the status quo, which the British have decided they don’t want.

    “The second is something better than the status quo, which the EU can’t possibly give them. And the third is something worse than the status quo, but since the status quo was not acceptable to you, something worse than the status quo couldn’t be acceptable either.

    “It is quite simple: if you enter into a negotiation in which all of your options are impossible, you can’t win.”

    And there we have it.

    It brilliantly right on the money isn’t it.
  • edited October 2018
    If we were sufficiently important to the EU for them to give us what we want out of fear of losing our money, then Brexit would be a positive. But despite many on the Brexit side of the argument telling us the negotiations would be straightforward and the EU would give us everything we want, that has clearly not been the case. Anybody with half a brain could have predicted that.

    I feel very angry about remainers telling us we voted and it is failing democracy to vote again, when what the people voted for was based on lies. Why are they so scared about another referendum? They know why? It is because they think they will now lose it now people have a better idea where Brexit will leave us. It can never be undemocratic to ask the people again, they have the opportunity to give the same response!
  • If we were sufficiently important to the EU for them to give us what we want out of fear of losing our money, then Brexit would be a positive. But despite many on the Brexit side of the argument telling us the negotiations would be straightforward and the EU would give us everything we want, that has clearly not been the case. Anybody with half a brain could have predicted that.

    I feel very angry about remainers telling us we voted and it is failing democracy to vote again, when what the people voted for was based on lies. Why are they so scared about another referendum? They know why? It is because they think they will now lose it now people have a better idea where Brexit will leave us. It can never be undemocratic to ask the people again, they have the opportunity to give the same response!

    By the same token, should we have a Scottish independence reference every 18 months? Just to keep our finger on the pulse of what the people want?

  • If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?

    In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.
  • If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?

    In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.

    We live in Parliamentary representative democracy. Referendums should be used sparingly, if at all. We elect MPs to make decisions. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Our elected MPs have chosen to act on the advice of the referendum. At 52/48 they could quite easily have said - this is too close a margin to make such a decision but we will explore the Leave options further and seek reform in the EU otherwise - a leave vote in their back pocket would have been a powerful weapon. Do what politicians love to do, kick the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with.

    This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.

    Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
  • I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.
  • I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.

    When would we have the 3rd, 4th and 5th referendums?
  • Sponsored links:


  • I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.

    When would we have the 3rd, 4th and 5th referendums?
    Why not have one every year? Maybe we can swap one of the May bank holidays for a new one in say early November - Referendum Day.
  • I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.

    When would we have the 3rd, 4th and 5th referendums?
    Whenever parliament formulates a policy which needs ratifying by the population?
  • Missed It said:

    If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?

    In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.

    We live in Parliamentary representative democracy. Referendums should be used sparingly, if at all. We elect MPs to make decisions. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Our elected MPs have chosen to act on the advice of the referendum. At 52/48 they could quite easily have said - this is too close a margin to make such a decision but we will explore the Leave options further and seek reform in the EU otherwise - a leave vote in their back pocket would have been a powerful weapon. Do what politicians love to do, kick the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with.

    This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.

    Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
    'By their behaviour'?
    Isn't that simply the wrong way of putting anything?
    Surely the EU is being the EU which should surprise nobody, especially the UK who has spent the best part of half a century participating in shaping the EU.
    There really is no need for the EU to do any more than respond to the UK by saying we agree to help you in the UK provided you realize that we will continue to be the EU. Now, what are your proposals?
  • I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.

    If the referendum was a bad idea first time round it is a terrible one second time round.
  • seth plum said:

    Missed It said:

    If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?

    In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.

    We live in Parliamentary representative democracy. Referendums should be used sparingly, if at all. We elect MPs to make decisions. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Our elected MPs have chosen to act on the advice of the referendum. At 52/48 they could quite easily have said - this is too close a margin to make such a decision but we will explore the Leave options further and seek reform in the EU otherwise - a leave vote in their back pocket would have been a powerful weapon. Do what politicians love to do, kick the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with.

    This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.

    Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
    'By their behaviour'?
    Isn't that simply the wrong way of putting anything?
    Surely the EU is being the EU which should surprise nobody, especially the UK who has spent the best part of half a century participating in shaping the EU.
    There really is no need for the EU to do any more than respond to the UK by saying we agree to help you in the UK provided you realize that we will continue to be the EU. Now, what are your proposals?
    What are my proposals? It's not my job to come up with proposals. All I had to do was vote in a referendum. There really is no need for me to do anything more than that.

    See how helpful I'm being? About as helpful as the EU.
  • I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.

    When would we have the 3rd, 4th and 5th referendums?
    Hopefully never - but I would say when there is a clear appetite to leave the EU at some point in the future, you could see there being a third. Anyway why not forget about the third or fourth and focus on the second?
  • edited October 2018
    Missed It said:

    seth plum said:

    Missed It said:

    If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?

    In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.

    We live in Parliamentary representative democracy. Referendums should be used sparingly, if at all. We elect MPs to make decisions. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Our elected MPs have chosen to act on the advice of the referendum. At 52/48 they could quite easily have said - this is too close a margin to make such a decision but we will explore the Leave options further and seek reform in the EU otherwise - a leave vote in their back pocket would have been a powerful weapon. Do what politicians love to do, kick the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with.

    This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.

    Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
    'By their behaviour'?
    Isn't that simply the wrong way of putting anything?
    Surely the EU is being the EU which should surprise nobody, especially the UK who has spent the best part of half a century participating in shaping the EU.
    There really is no need for the EU to do any more than respond to the UK by saying we agree to help you in the UK provided you realize that we will continue to be the EU. Now, what are your proposals?
    What are my proposals? It's not my job to come up with proposals. All I had to do was vote in a referendum. There really is no need for me to do anything more than that.

    See how helpful I'm being? About as helpful as the EU.
    Sorry, I wasn't asking you, Missed it, for proposals, I was riffing on the notion that the EU asks the UK for proposals.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I’m all for freedom of the press but things like this just shouldn’t be allowed to be printed.
  • I’m all for freedom of the press but things like this just shouldn’t be allowed to be printed.

    It is no more outlandish then anything written by Johnson, Rees-Mogg, the Leave campaign or any number of other Brexit looneys.
  • I’m all for freedom of the press but things like this just shouldn’t be allowed to be printed.

    It is no more outlandish then anything written by Johnson, Rees-Mogg, the Leave campaign or any number of other Brexit looneys.
    No. It actually is more outlandish.

  • I’m all for freedom of the press but things like this just shouldn’t be allowed to be printed.

    It is no more outlandish then anything written by Johnson, Rees-Mogg, the Leave campaign or any number of other Brexit looneys.
    No. It actually is more outlandish.

    More outlandish than the idea that we will be swamped by Turkish immigrants?
  • Isn't it a satire on project fear? Or am I giving the Sunday sport unwanted credit
  • Mental. I think Brexit will adversely affect the country, but that's ridiculous
  • McBobbin said:

    Isn't it a satire on project fear? Or am I giving the Sunday sport unwanted credit

    I was thinking that. But now I think maybe it is a strategy (Leave.EU? Putin?) to plant really outlandish Brexit scare stories in the press over the next 6 months so Brexiteers can start trying to dismiss genuine negative Brexit stories by association.
  • McBobbin said:

    Isn't it a satire on project fear? Or am I giving the Sunday sport unwanted credit

    I was thinking that. But now I think maybe it is a strategy (Leave.EU? Putin?) to plant really outlandish Brexit scare stories in the press over the next 6 months so Brexiteers can start trying to dismiss genuine negative Brexit stories by association.
    Does anybody read the Sunday Sport?
  • I didn't know it was still on sale! Who buys it?
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!