FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Revise it (brexit)
Revise it (brexit)
Jump to: Newest in thread
I've been following the development for the last few years manly from watching PMQS and online news and politician's twitter.
I hear the argument time and time again, though we have to honour the leave vote. We still need to balance it for the Romainers.
What if the Romainers actually won, would they really still balance it for the Leavers.
My opinion is no, because they got the result they want and wouldn't care about the Leavers at all.
This then actually we're none of the rowing would have taken place over the last 3 years and out we have been on the original date.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"I've been following the development for the last few years manly from watching PMQS and online news and politician's twitter.
I hear the argument time and time again, though we have to honour the leave vote. We still need to balance it for the Romainers.
What if the Romainers actually won, would they really still balance it for the Leavers.
My opinion is no, because they got the result they want and wouldn't care about the Leavers at all.
This then actually we're none of the rowing would have taken place over the last 3 years and out we have been on the original date.
"
I actually think that you are wrong about that. I think that many, many Remain supporters are pragmatists and recognise that stark division is an inhibitor of progress. On any given day since June 2016 Leave or Remain could have won by a narrow margin and that only demonstrates what we already know - the nation is split and to move forwards, both have to compromise.
Our traditional first past the post political system is being highlighted for its flaws in this process as “the winner” expects to take all without compromise. As we have seen, the country has been unable to forward because of this.
As a committed Remainer, my view on this is that we don’t need a second referendum because it is clear that the country is split. I get it that our relationship with the E.U. has to change - but how? What i think is needed now is what should have happened immediately after the referendum - a cross-party, cross-allegiance group to agree a compromise solution on behalf of the country as a whole and let the country get on with the really important stuff
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"I've been following the development for the last few years manly from watching PMQS and online news and politician's twitter.
I hear the argument time and time again, though we have to honour the leave vote. We still need to balance it for the Romainers.
What if the Romainers actually won, would they really still balance it for the Leavers.
My opinion is no, because they got the result they want and wouldn't care about the Leavers at all.
This then actually we're none of the rowing would have taken place over the last 3 years and out we have been on the original date.
I actually think that you are wrong about that. I think that many, many Remain supporters are pragmatists and recognise that stark division is an inhibitor of progress. On any given day since June 2016 Leave or Remain could have won by a narrow margin and that only demonstrates what we already know - the nation is split and to move forwards, both have to compromise.
Our traditional first past the post political system is being highlighted for its flaws in this process as “the winner” expects to take all without compromise. As we have seen, the country has been unable to forward because of this.
As a committed Remainer, my view on this is that we don’t need a second referendum because it is clear that the country is split. I get it that our relationship with the E.U. has to change - but how? What i think is needed now is what should have happened immediately after the referendum - a cross-party, cross-allegiance group to agree a compromise solution on behalf of the country as a whole and let the country get on with the really important stuff
"
A good idea but the eu have red lines they are not prepared to compromise so we would still be in the same situation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *VineMan
over a year ago
The right place |
No one really knows whether we will be better off in or out of Europe. It’s an amazingly complex question to answer. And yet people feel really strongly about Leave or Remain.
It really surprises me how people can hold such strong views on a subject matter than no one has any surety on the implications of the position they feel so strongly about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been following the development for the last few years manly from watching PMQS and online news and politician's twitter.
I hear the argument time and time again, though we have to honour the leave vote. We still need to balance it for the Romainers.
What if the Romainers actually won, would they really still balance it for the Leavers.
My opinion is no, because they got the result they want and wouldn't care about the Leavers at all.
This then actually we're none of the rowing would have taken place over the last 3 years and out we have been on the original date.
"
I disagree, I've not heard one remain supporter on here say the EU is perfect. Far from it, the theme amongst the remainers has been it needs reform but being in it and properly trying to influence and steer that reform is the better option than leaving it..
Compromise and pragmstism has been cited often on here but not from the majority of the leave contributors..
The need to actually do something positive after the vote was missed in uniting the country and instead its gone down the politics of division which does not look like being rectified any time soon..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"I've been following the development for the last few years manly from watching PMQS and online news and politician's twitter.
I hear the argument time and time again, though we have to honour the leave vote. We still need to balance it for the Romainers.
What if the Romainers actually won, would they really still balance it for the Leavers.
My opinion is no, because they got the result they want and wouldn't care about the Leavers at all.
This then actually we're none of the rowing would have taken place over the last 3 years and out we have been on the original date.
I actually think that you are wrong about that. I think that many, many Remain supporters are pragmatists and recognise that stark division is an inhibitor of progress. On any given day since June 2016 Leave or Remain could have won by a narrow margin and that only demonstrates what we already know - the nation is split and to move forwards, both have to compromise.
Our traditional first past the post political system is being highlighted for its flaws in this process as “the winner” expects to take all without compromise. As we have seen, the country has been unable to forward because of this.
As a committed Remainer, my view on this is that we don’t need a second referendum because it is clear that the country is split. I get it that our relationship with the E.U. has to change - but how? What i think is needed now is what should have happened immediately after the referendum - a cross-party, cross-allegiance group to agree a compromise solution on behalf of the country as a whole and let the country get on with the really important stuff
A good idea but the eu have red lines they are not prepared to compromise so we would still be in the same situation."
However the cross-allegiance group would have arrived at a conclusion TOGETHER and the politics of division that has poisoned the issue would have been neutered because the group negotiating could not have been shouting stupid slogans at each other whilst simultaneously negotiating with E.U.
We know from history both here and abroad that when people are actually talking to each other they invariably make progress, or at worst / stop fighting with each other.
This was badly handled from the outset and this is why we have divisions now. It could still be fixed, but I don’t see the Conservatives wanting to pursue anything sensible at the moment.
You watch... No Deal is a failure of politics at the very highest level. It is a failure of referendum and manifesto pledges to leave the E.U. in an orderly way and to negotiate “the best” deal available with the E.U. This failure is already being championed as a great victory for “plucky Britain.” The history books will tell a very different story. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"I've been following the development for the last few years manly from watching PMQS and online news and politician's twitter.
I hear the argument time and time again, though we have to honour the leave vote. We still need to balance it for the Romainers.
What if the Romainers actually won, would they really still balance it for the Leavers.
My opinion is no, because they got the result they want and wouldn't care about the Leavers at all.
This then actually we're none of the rowing would have taken place over the last 3 years and out we have been on the original date.
I actually think that you are wrong about that. I think that many, many Remain supporters are pragmatists and recognise that stark division is an inhibitor of progress. On any given day since June 2016 Leave or Remain could have won by a narrow margin and that only demonstrates what we already know - the nation is split and to move forwards, both have to compromise.
Our traditional first past the post political system is being highlighted for its flaws in this process as “the winner” expects to take all without compromise. As we have seen, the country has been unable to forward because of this.
As a committed Remainer, my view on this is that we don’t need a second referendum because it is clear that the country is split. I get it that our relationship with the E.U. has to change - but how? What i think is needed now is what should have happened immediately after the referendum - a cross-party, cross-allegiance group to agree a compromise solution on behalf of the country as a whole and let the country get on with the really important stuff
A good idea but the eu have red lines they are not prepared to compromise so we would still be in the same situation.
However the cross-allegiance group would have arrived at a conclusion TOGETHER and the politics of division that has poisoned the issue would have been neutered because the group negotiating could not have been shouting stupid slogans at each other whilst simultaneously negotiating with E.U.
We know from history both here and abroad that when people are actually talking to each other they invariably make progress, or at worst / stop fighting with each other.
This was badly handled from the outset and this is why we have divisions now. It could still be fixed, but I don’t see the Conservatives wanting to pursue anything sensible at the moment.
You watch... No Deal is a failure of politics at the very highest level. It is a failure of referendum and manifesto pledges to leave the E.U. in an orderly way and to negotiate “the best” deal available with the E.U. This failure is already being championed as a great victory for “plucky Britain.” The history books will tell a very different story."
I think corbyn,s attitude all through the process that a cross party agreement was never going to happen he opposes everything in the hope of a GE. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been following the development for the last few years manly from watching PMQS and online news and politician's twitter.
I hear the argument time and time again, though we have to honour the leave vote. We still need to balance it for the Romainers.
What if the Romainers actually won, would they really still balance it for the Leavers.
My opinion is no, because they got the result they want and wouldn't care about the Leavers at all.
This then actually we're none of the rowing would have taken place over the last 3 years and out we have been on the original date.
I actually think that you are wrong about that. I think that many, many Remain supporters are pragmatists and recognise that stark division is an inhibitor of progress. On any given day since June 2016 Leave or Remain could have won by a narrow margin and that only demonstrates what we already know - the nation is split and to move forwards, both have to compromise.
Our traditional first past the post political system is being highlighted for its flaws in this process as “the winner” expects to take all without compromise. As we have seen, the country has been unable to forward because of this.
As a committed Remainer, my view on this is that we don’t need a second referendum because it is clear that the country is split. I get it that our relationship with the E.U. has to change - but how? What i think is needed now is what should have happened immediately after the referendum - a cross-party, cross-allegiance group to agree a compromise solution on behalf of the country as a whole and let the country get on with the really important stuff
"
As a committed leaver I actually agree with this  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ky19Man
over a year ago
Plymouth |
"No one really knows whether we will be better off in or out of Europe. It’s an amazingly complex question to answer. And yet people feel really strongly about Leave or Remain.
It really surprises me how people can hold such strong views on a subject matter than no one has any surety on the implications of the position they feel so strongly about. "
Heya, I guess you mean economically? I guess no-one really does but that hasn't stopped public figures with a conflict of interest telling us exactly what will happen when we leave.
I think we can be quite sure of what happens in other areas? At least by leaving, we won't have unelected leaders who can never be voted out (the potential implications of that is worrying). While we moan about our politicians at least we have some semblance of power with our vote, even if they all get voted into the same system anyway.
We should continue to be the United Kingdom/Great Britain, and not be reduced to an in-name-only department of the EU federal state, coming our way soon, with it's own army to boot! Does anyone know who's won the Kallergi award this year btw?
I maintain if we had remained, it would have meant change too in the form of "further integration". I was told to "do my research!" So I did.
Although it may sound silly, I also maintain any entity with a building that is specifically designed to resemble the Tower of Babel from Genesis can't be any good. They even have a statue outside of the woman riding a bull from Revelation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ky19Man
over a year ago
Plymouth |
"Our traditional first past the post political system is being highlighted for its flaws in this process as “the winner” expects to take all without compromise. As we have seen, the country has been unable to forward because of this."
"A good idea but the eu have red lines they are not prepared to compromise so we would still be in the same situation.""
FPTP - This is why I really wanted Alternative Vote to work in 2011. IMO it looked like it was going to win but we fell for the usual media-reporting-a-narrative-instead-of-the-news and chose to reject that once in a lifetime opportunity in order to punish Nick Clegg. Even though it was Tories and their fake austerity (for us) that cooked up the tuition fees policy and twisted Clegg's arm.
We also listened to public figures telling us "we would be voting twice for other parties" such as the MP with a fake smile on her face on TV. I remember realising that far from misunderstanding, she was lying on purpose to mislead people!  I was so naive.
I think Alternative Vote would have been much fairer, giving more representative power to smaller parties and taking it from bigger parties. That should have helped make the main parties that much more accountable. No wonder so many strings were pulled in the media to stop it.
===
As for the EU, I think one of their hidden red lines is that they maintain ultimate control over us in the small print of any deal. Which is why we're getting hammered in the media by the need for a deal.
This is what I fear Boris will do. The EU and the world cabal globalists are not going to let us go free, I think we need to make sure we've grasped that.
So this fake mess will continue until we finally back down and compromise signing ourselves away after all on some deal, which turns out to be independence in-name-only.
(Or they can finally force a second referendum ONCE they've bussed in enough people from Europe - who are mostly going to vote one way - and given them housing instead of homeless people)
This is why I've gone back to preferring no deal (which is what I thought Leave was anyway) over a bad deal. Deal is good in theory, why not, but for goodness sake get the best people to go over every word and check the small print! I feel safer just not having a deal because they've shown they can't be trusted and don't have our best interests at heart. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"No one really knows whether we will be better off in or out of Europe. It’s an amazingly complex question to answer. And yet people feel really strongly about Leave or Remain.
It really surprises me how people can hold such strong views on a subject matter than no one has any surety on the implications of the position they feel so strongly about.
Heya, I guess you mean economically? I guess no-one really does but that hasn't stopped public figures with a conflict of interest telling us exactly what will happen when we leave.
I think we can be quite sure of what happens in other areas? At least by leaving, we won't have unelected leaders who can never be voted out (the potential implications of that is worrying). While we moan about our politicians at least we have some semblance of power with our vote, even if they all get voted into the same system anyway.
We should continue to be the United Kingdom/Great Britain, and not be reduced to an in-name-only department of the EU federal state, coming our way soon, with it's own army to boot! Does anyone know who's won the Kallergi award this year btw?
I maintain if we had remained, it would have meant change too in the form of "further integration". I was told to "do my research!" So I did.
Although it may sound silly, I also maintain any entity with a building that is specifically designed to resemble the Tower of Babel from Genesis can't be any good. They even have a statue outside of the woman riding a bull from Revelation."
You clearly did not do your research because the U.K. was never going to be part of “ever closer integration” as you call it.
Amongst other things, David Cameron negotiated an opt out from the United Kingdom being tied to the concept of “ever closer union.” He hoped that this and the opt out of the E.U. defence alliance would be enough to win the referendum. Ironically - both of these opt outs were barely mentioned in the referendum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As for the EU, I think one of their hidden red lines is that they maintain ultimate control over us in the small print of any deal"
The EU do not in any way have 'ultimate control' over us, and they never had.
What is this weird fetish that Brexiteers have for talking up the EU's power in this way? Does it make you feel good to imagine you're rebelling against some vast, looming empire rather than the reality of leaving a mutually beneficial arrangement? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
" Ironically - both of these opt outs were barely mentioned in the referendum."
We were on the inside, with a set of opt-outs.
Now we want to be on the outside, with a set of opt-ins.
I've come to the conclusion this is all just about process and form.
The real things in life, the things that affect people day to day, have been forgotten about.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ky19Man
over a year ago
Plymouth |
"No one really knows whether we will be better off in or out of Europe. It’s an amazingly complex question to answer. And yet people feel really strongly about Leave or Remain.
It really surprises me how people can hold such strong views on a subject matter than no one has any surety on the implications of the position they feel so strongly about.
Heya, I guess you mean economically? I guess no-one really does but that hasn't stopped public figures with a conflict of interest telling us exactly what will happen when we leave.
I think we can be quite sure of what happens in other areas? At least by leaving, we won't have unelected leaders who can never be voted out (the potential implications of that is worrying). While we moan about our politicians at least we have some semblance of power with our vote, even if they all get voted into the same system anyway.
We should continue to be the United Kingdom/Great Britain, and not be reduced to an in-name-only department of the EU federal state, coming our way soon, with it's own army to boot! Does anyone know who's won the Kallergi award this year btw?
I maintain if we had remained, it would have meant change too in the form of "further integration". I was told to "do my research!" So I did.
Although it may sound silly, I also maintain any entity with a building that is specifically designed to resemble the Tower of Babel from Genesis can't be any good. They even have a statue outside of the woman riding a bull from Revelation.
You clearly did not do your research because the U.K. was never going to be part of “ever closer integration” as you call it.
Amongst other things, David Cameron negotiated an opt out from the United Kingdom being tied to the concept of “ever closer union.” He hoped that this and the opt out of the E.U. defence alliance would be enough to win the referendum. Ironically - both of these opt outs were barely mentioned in the referendum."
I just saw this. I've done a good bit of research.
David Cameron also told us before the vote; "This is it. A one time vote. In or out. We will implement what you vote for."
It was only after the ruling class didn't get the result they wanted that all this "it's only advisory!" started.
We were also told "Brexit means Brexit", "My job is to deliver brexit to the British people" and the rest.
The public were also told in 1975 this was a mere trading agreement and would never become anything more, especially not a full political machine like it has done.
The point is I don't think we can set much stock by Cameron's words.
The fact that these people aren't going to let us leave and they want the status quo so much should be a major red flag. They aren't doing this for our benefit.
I've done research. I can just see through all this obfuscating and framing everything around the economy, with clairvoyant statements of what will happen.
I can also think for myself, which is a vital weapon these days! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"No one really knows whether we will be better off in or out of Europe. It’s an amazingly complex question to answer. And yet people feel really strongly about Leave or Remain.
It really surprises me how people can hold such strong views on a subject matter than no one has any surety on the implications of the position they feel so strongly about.
Heya, I guess you mean economically? I guess no-one really does but that hasn't stopped public figures with a conflict of interest telling us exactly what will happen when we leave.
I think we can be quite sure of what happens in other areas? At least by leaving, we won't have unelected leaders who can never be voted out (the potential implications of that is worrying). While we moan about our politicians at least we have some semblance of power with our vote, even if they all get voted into the same system anyway.
We should continue to be the United Kingdom/Great Britain, and not be reduced to an in-name-only department of the EU federal state, coming our way soon, with it's own army to boot! Does anyone know who's won the Kallergi award this year btw?
I maintain if we had remained, it would have meant change too in the form of "further integration". I was told to "do my research!" So I did.
Although it may sound silly, I also maintain any entity with a building that is specifically designed to resemble the Tower of Babel from Genesis can't be any good. They even have a statue outside of the woman riding a bull from Revelation.
You clearly did not do your research because the U.K. was never going to be part of “ever closer integration” as you call it.
Amongst other things, David Cameron negotiated an opt out from the United Kingdom being tied to the concept of “ever closer union.” He hoped that this and the opt out of the E.U. defence alliance would be enough to win the referendum. Ironically - both of these opt outs were barely mentioned in the referendum.
I just saw this. I've done a good bit of research.
David Cameron also told us before the vote; "This is it. A one time vote. In or out. We will implement what you vote for."
It was only after the ruling class didn't get the result they wanted that all this "it's only advisory!" started.
We were also told "Brexit means Brexit", "My job is to deliver brexit to the British people" and the rest.
The public were also told in 1975 this was a mere trading agreement and would never become anything more, especially not a full political machine like it has done.
The point is I don't think we can set much stock by Cameron's words.
The fact that these people aren't going to let us leave and they want the status quo so much should be a major red flag. They aren't doing this for our benefit.
I've done research. I can just see through all this obfuscating and framing everything around the economy, with clairvoyant statements of what will happen.
I can also think for myself, which is a vital weapon these days!"
What will be the benefit to you (and I) from leaving the E.U.?
Please put your weapon to good use. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No one really knows whether we will be better off in or out of Europe. It’s an amazingly complex question to answer. And yet people feel really strongly about Leave or Remain.
It really surprises me how people can hold such strong views on a subject matter than no one has any surety on the implications of the position they feel so strongly about.
Heya, I guess you mean economically? I guess no-one really does but that hasn't stopped public figures with a conflict of interest telling us exactly what will happen when we leave.
I think we can be quite sure of what happens in other areas? At least by leaving, we won't have unelected leaders who can never be voted out (the potential implications of that is worrying). While we moan about our politicians at least we have some semblance of power with our vote, even if they all get voted into the same system anyway.
We should continue to be the United Kingdom/Great Britain, and not be reduced to an in-name-only department of the EU federal state, coming our way soon, with it's own army to boot! Does anyone know who's won the Kallergi award this year btw?
I maintain if we had remained, it would have meant change too in the form of "further integration". I was told to "do my research!" So I did.
Although it may sound silly, I also maintain any entity with a building that is specifically designed to resemble the Tower of Babel from Genesis can't be any good. They even have a statue outside of the woman riding a bull from Revelation.
You clearly did not do your research because the U.K. was never going to be part of “ever closer integration” as you call it.
Amongst other things, David Cameron negotiated an opt out from the United Kingdom being tied to the concept of “ever closer union.” He hoped that this and the opt out of the E.U. defence alliance would be enough to win the referendum. Ironically - both of these opt outs were barely mentioned in the referendum.
I just saw this. I've done a good bit of research.
David Cameron also told us before the vote; "This is it. A one time vote. In or out. We will implement what you vote for."
It was only after the ruling class didn't get the result they wanted that all this "it's only advisory!" started.
We were also told "Brexit means Brexit", "My job is to deliver brexit to the British people" and the rest.
The public were also told in 1975 this was a mere trading agreement and would never become anything more, especially not a full political machine like it has done.
The point is I don't think we can set much stock by Cameron's words.
The fact that these people aren't going to let us leave and they want the status quo so much should be a major red flag. They aren't doing this for our benefit.
I've done research. I can just see through all this obfuscating and framing everything around the economy, with clairvoyant statements of what will happen.
I can also think for myself, which is a vital weapon these days!
What will be the benefit to you (and I) from leaving the E.U.?
Please put your weapon to good use."
We've had years now of patiently asking the brexiters to give concrete examples of the benefits to be gained from leaving, anything to justify the mind-boggling cost so far incurred. Every response has been shown as lies and stupidity. Now we are hearing "it will be difficult for a while but it'll get better eventually", and "we came through the blitz, england can survive", and "it's worth the uk breaking up as long as we exit", and "the people say we must do it, we have to leave, it doesn't matter how much it costs". There are no benefits for 99.9% of the population - but it will make a small number of billionaires even richer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No one really knows whether we will be better off in or out of Europe. It’s an amazingly complex question to answer. And yet people feel really strongly about Leave or Remain.
It really surprises me how people can hold such strong views on a subject matter than no one has any surety on the implications of the position they feel so strongly about.
Heya, I guess you mean economically? I guess no-one really does but that hasn't stopped public figures with a conflict of interest telling us exactly what will happen when we leave.
I think we can be quite sure of what happens in other areas? At least by leaving, we won't have unelected leaders who can never be voted out (the potential implications of that is worrying). While we moan about our politicians at least we have some semblance of power with our vote, even if they all get voted into the same system anyway.
We should continue to be the United Kingdom/Great Britain, and not be reduced to an in-name-only department of the EU federal state, coming our way soon, with it's own army to boot! Does anyone know who's won the Kallergi award this year btw?
I maintain if we had remained, it would have meant change too in the form of "further integration". I was told to "do my research!" So I did.
Although it may sound silly, I also maintain any entity with a building that is specifically designed to resemble the Tower of Babel from Genesis can't be any good. They even have a statue outside of the woman riding a bull from Revelation."
Actually that's not what the woman on the bull statue is. The women on the bull is Europa, from Greek mythology. In Greek mythology Europa was carried of by a bull into the sea while trying to tame it. If you'd actually done as much research as you claim you would have known that. But, like your other research into a European Army, a federal state and election of EU officials, it's wrong, sallow and clearly only based on information from one side of the argument.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Our traditional first past the post political system is being highlighted for its flaws in this process as “the winner” expects to take all without compromise. As we have seen, the country has been unable to forward because of this."
"A good idea but the eu have red lines they are not prepared to compromise so we would still be in the same situation."
FPTP - This is why I really wanted Alternative Vote to work in 2011. IMO it looked like it was going to win but we fell for the usual media-reporting-a-narrative-instead-of-the-news and chose to reject that once in a lifetime opportunity in order to punish Nick Clegg. Even though it was Tories and their fake austerity (for us) that cooked up the tuition fees policy and twisted Clegg's arm.
We also listened to public figures telling us "we would be voting twice for other parties" such as the MP with a fake smile on her face on TV. I remember realising that far from misunderstanding, she was lying on purpose to mislead people! I was so naive.
I think Alternative Vote would have been much fairer, giving more representative power to smaller parties and taking it from bigger parties. That should have helped make the main parties that much more accountable. No wonder so many strings were pulled in the media to stop it.
===
As for the EU, I think one of their hidden red lines is that they maintain ultimate control over us in the small print of any deal. Which is why we're getting hammered in the media by the need for a deal.
This is what I fear Boris will do. The EU and the world cabal globalists are not going to let us go free, I think we need to make sure we've grasped that.
So this fake mess will continue until we finally back down and compromise signing ourselves away after all on some deal, which turns out to be independence in-name-only.
(Or they can finally force a second referendum ONCE they've bussed in enough people from Europe - who are mostly going to vote one way - and given them housing instead of homeless people)
This is why I've gone back to preferring no deal (which is what I thought Leave was anyway) over a bad deal. Deal is good in theory, why not, but for goodness sake get the best people to go over every word and check the small print! I feel safer just not having a deal because they've shown they can't be trusted and don't have our best interests at heart."
But the Leave choice is not really a choice between Leave with a deal or Leave with no deal. The real choice is get a deal before we Leave and avoid any unnecessary distribution to trade, or get pretty much the same deal after we've left and had to suffer massive trade distribution. Either way their will eventually be a deal and the deal will both be less good than the deal we currently have in the EU and pretty much the same deal wether we get it before or after we Leave. The only real Leave 'no deal' option is to actually Remain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think the balance would have continued, as it's been highly public that the UK would continue to seek for and empower change within the EU.
There's good history of resolving divided public opinion, where all sides can get elements of compromise, even if there was a majority for one part. Typically, succesful diplomats would always have a plan, that could include such necessary action. Cameron and May didn't seem to have that intelligence, having no plan of any type. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
Heya, I guess you mean economically? I guess no-one really does but that hasn't stopped public figures with a conflict of interest telling us exactly what will happen when we leave.
I think we can be quite sure of what happens in other areas? At least by leaving, we won't have unelected leaders who can never be voted out (the potential implications of that is worrying). While we moan about our politicians at least we have some semblance of power with our vote, even if they all get voted into the same system anyway.
We should continue to be the United Kingdom/Great Britain, and not be reduced to an in-name-only department of the EU federal state, coming our way soon, with it's own army to boot! Does anyone know who's won the Kallergi award this year btw?
I maintain if we had remained, it would have meant change too in the form of "further integration". I was told to "do my research!" So I did.
Although it may sound silly, I also maintain any entity with a building that is specifically designed to resemble the Tower of Babel from Genesis can't be any good. They even have a statue outside of the woman riding a bull from Revelation."
the bit about unelected leaders bit gave me a big giggle bearing in mind the UK has a whole unelected 2nd chamber of them called "the house of lords"....... but i am guessing you put that in for comedic value...
the uk had a great bespoked deal....
it wasn't part of defence policy....
it wasn't part of currency union and the eurozone
it wasn't part of Schengen......
and yet.... you still think you are being kicked in the knackers over something the UK suggested (the backstop was a uk government suggestion, not an EU one)
remember nigel farage famously before the result said that "if the referendum was 52-48 remain, then there would be unfinished business"...... well..... taaaadaaa!!!!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
