Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted: 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Why should we believe you? That may apply to you, and maybe some others, but The ONLY people I know personally that voted to leave did so to register their dislike of the way the EU was going, not expecting to “win”, and ALL now regretting what they did, all the more so as more facts have emerged over time as to what it is s likely to mean in practice the more they regret what they did.

Resurrection posted:

Ha! Ha! Don. I don't want another referendum and you won't get one. You blew your one and only chance partly by being over presumptions about the final result. 

 

Sadly, for you and your like minded thinkers, I am the inconvenient spectre at your barren feast  and the only proper answer to this tedious argument.

Why should we care what you want? The only thing that matters is what is right fot UK, and, regardless of my personal feelings, and those of a bunch of people who voted on the basis of lies, deceipt, misinformation and lack of information, Brexit is increasingly evident as BAD for the UK, so wrong.

BTW, I have NO political affiliation, sipupport NO party, have NO interest in politics of any sort, but I do want a prosperous Nd successful country, which I very much fear Brexit will NOT deliver. 

If you want to argue otherwise, please advance solid reasons as to what positive benefit Brexit has to offer (and maintainng sovereignty is not adequate - that I think all sides want, but Brexit is not the only way of ensuring it.

Solid ideas? Really, what more do I have to argue than the will of 17.4 million people? I do not have to rationalise sovereignty, border control, repatriation of hugely needed funds, the ability to conclude our own judicial will and our own trade deals, or even who may or may not come into this country. This is called self determination without the need to crawl to a drunk called Juncker or a usurper of power called Selmayr. Only the most narrow minded, intransigent EUrophile is unable to recognise the inherent democratic deficits of the EU . 

Whilst I readily agree that the EU is far from perfect, and vehemently oppose the creeping loss of sovereignty through the apparent ulterior motive of a “united states of europe” that is being pursued by those that have the power in the EU, it also brought positives including free movement of people and goods. What is needed is fixing the negatives, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

As I have suggested before, and not countered by you, your stance of not wanting to have another referendum is clearly based on a fear that the original majority will have evaporated now that people have a much clearer idea of what Brexit really means, which was definitely not evident in the lies, deceit, miss-information and ignorance that abounded back at the time of the referendum. If that were not the case, would it not be better to have a second, confermatory referendum (along the lines of “right, now you know what Brexit really means, please confirm it is what you really want”). Then, if a majority support it, the Government can go ahead regardless of consequences,  and those of us who believe it isat best misguided, let alone totally foolhardy, will simply have no option but to shut up and accept it - which surely is what you want.

And please don’t trot out the “we won” rubbish again - it was not a war, or even a competition, but a vote on the future of the country.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Solid ideas? Really, what more do I have to argue than the will of 17.4 million people? I do not have to rationalise sovereignty, border control, repatriation of hugely needed funds, the ability to conclude our own judicial will and our own trade deals, or even who may or may not come into this country. This is called self determination without the need to crawl to a drunk called Juncker or a usurper of power called Selmayr. Only the most narrow minded, intransigent EUrophile is unable to recognise the inherent democratic deficits of the EU . 

Whilst I readily agree that the EU is far from perfect, and vehemently oppose the creeping loss of sovereignty through the apparent ulterior motive of a “united states of europe” that is being pursued by those that have the power in the EU, it also brought positives including free movement of people and goods. What is needed is fixing the negatives, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

As I have suggested before, and not countered by you, your stance of not wanting to have another referendum is clearly based on a fear that the original majority will have evaporated now that people have a much clearer idea of what Brexit really means, which was definitely not evident in the lies, deceit, miss-information and ignorance that abounded back at the time of the referendum. If that were not the case, would it not be better to have a second, confermatory referendum (along the lines of “right, now you know what Brexit really means, please confirm it is what you really want”). Then, if a majority support it, the Government can go ahead regardless of consequences,  and those of us who believe it isat best misguided, let alone totally foolhardy, will simply have no option but to shut up and accept it - which surely is what you want.

And please don’t trot out the “we won” rubbish again - it was not a war, or even a competition, but a vote on the future of the country.

IB - I have no idea what a post Brexit UK will look like and make no pretences that I do. My vote was based on  my perception of the history of the EU, its impact on the UK, its future direction and its current structure. In short, I don't and didn't like it. I did live for five years in Belgium and travelled significantly. My passport was checked every time I left and arrived at Zaventem. I never felt that it was over intrusive and the real security that real borders gave to each country within then then EEC was worth the trivial hassle. When the borders opened I was initially happy as people like me and probably you posed no threat to anyone and was happy making a positive contribution to the companies and countries I worked in. The creeping political federalism was not on the agenda at that time and I was happy in the belief that the EEC was a positive influence for its members even though, as usual, the UK overpaid membership dues.

Anyone with a firing neurone can see that the open border scenario has been open door time to undesirables and the mass migrations encouraged by the likes of Tony Blair has destabilised almost every country in the EU. The rise of populism throughout Europe as well as anti-EU sentiment emphasises the disquiet felt and alienation of the masses to their political masters. If a Referendum was granted to any country not directly feeding from the EU's trough I suspect that Juncker would have much negotiating to do to stop the rats jumping off the ship.

It is an inherent dislike and distrust of what the EU has become that drives many of us to vote to leave it.

Looks like the U.K. could be excluded from Galileo. This has been a long time coming, with a high U.K. input, both financially and technically. It is the EU equivalent of the USA GPS.

Most of us enjoy the free use of GPS, and with WAAS and EGNOS augmentation we have a very accurate positioning system. But we are dependent on USA good will for the basic systems and even more so for the precise positioning coding that is available for military use.

The U.K. needs to negotiate FULL membership of Galileo or set up and fund its own system. Neither will be cheap.

Resurrection - I think the arguments you have advanced as to why you originally voted to leave, and would do so again if there were another referendum, are mostly rational (I'll come back to the small qualification). I respect your right to hold those views. There will be many others who voted leave for similar reasons and whose views haven't changed.  But IB is arguing that there will be some who voted leave on different and possibly less-considered grounds, e.g. the money 'Leave' said the NHS would get, and would likely vote differently if they had known at the time of the referendum what they know today.   I've certainly met people who have volunteered that they wish they had voted to stay not leave.  So the democratic argument that IB makes -  asking people: 'this is the deal we've negotiated, are you still sure you want to leave?' seems to me perfectly respectable. I concede that it is difficult politically, but that's a problem for our politicians.

Coming back to my qualification, I think the statistics on immigration over the years since the Conservative party came to power rather undermine the rhetoric about 'taking control of our borders' because those statistics show that immigration from non-EU countries is in every year well above the targets set by HMG.  In other words, the Conservatives have demonstrated very clearly that it has failed miserably to control immigration where it has full control so why should anyone have any confidence in it doing any better when those same failing controls are applied to immigration from EU countries?     

Don Atkinson posted:

Looks like the U.K. could be excluded from Galileo. This has been a long time coming, with a high U.K. input, both financially and technically. It is the EU equivalent of the USA GPS.

Most of us enjoy the free use of GPS, and with WAAS and EGNOS augmentation we have a very accurate positioning system. But we are dependent on USA good will for the basic systems and even more so for the precise positioning coding that is available for military use.

The U.K. needs to negotiate FULL membership of Galileo or set up and fund its own system. Neither will be cheap.

Yes, I read about that today, Don.  But on this topic at least it was reported that ministers are very keen to stay part of Galileo so hopefully they will find a way of doing so during the detailed negotiations to come. 

Resurrection posted:

Solid ideas? Really, what more do I have to argue than the will of 56.4 million people? I do not have to rationalise sovereignty, border control, the ability to conclude our own judicial will and our own trade deals, or even who may or may not come into this country.

Putin delivers the above. But I doubt you'd want to live in Russia.

Has Theressa May hit a lucky streak.

She gives a speech expaining to the EU how much they need the UK’s cooperation to deter any threat from Russia.

Within a couple weeks Russia unleash a nerve agent attack in the UK, just as the Brexit negotiations are reaching crunch time.

What’s the chances of that happening??????

MDS posted:

Resurrection - I think the arguments you have advanced as to why you originally voted to leave, and would do so again if there were another referendum, are mostly rational (I'll come back to the small qualification). I respect your right to hold those views. There will be many others who voted leave for similar reasons and whose views haven't changed.  But IB is arguing that there will be some who voted leave on different and possibly less-considered grounds, e.g. the money 'Leave' said the NHS would get, and would likely vote differently if they had known at the time of the referendum what they know today.   I've certainly met people who have volunteered that they wish they had voted to stay not leave.  So the democratic argument that IB makes -  asking people: 'this is the deal we've negotiated, are you still sure you want to leave?' seems to me perfectly respectable. I concede that it is difficult politically, but that's a problem for our politicians.

Coming back to my qualification, I think the statistics on immigration over the years since the Conservative party came to power rather undermine the rhetoric about 'taking control of our borders' because those statistics show that immigration from non-EU countries is in every year well above the targets set by HMG.  In other words, the Conservatives have demonstrated very clearly that it has failed miserably to control immigration where it has full control so why should anyone have any confidence in it doing any better when those same failing controls are applied to immigration from EU countries?     

Perfectly correct! In that the growth in immigration of the EU and non EU variety was under the stewardship of one T May since 2010, who I hold personally accountable. For whatever reason, she feels that the UK is infinite in space and resources for anyone able to breach our porous borders. However, she will have nothing to hide behind once we leave the EU.

I find it very interesting in all the Parliamentary debates about all the housing we need when the actual reason for the demand is never ever allowed to be aired i.e. the arrival of a city the size of Newcastle every year.

IMO I am a rational right winger, not an irrational one, although some of you may beg to differ. ????

fatcat posted:

Resurrection posted:

Solid ideas? Really, what more do I have to argue than the will of 56.4 million people? I do not have to rationalise sovereignty, border control, the ability to conclude our own judicial will and our own trade deals, or even who may or may not come into this country.

Putin delivers the above. But I doubt you'd want to live in Russia.

The 17.4 million delivered the majority for the 56.4 million...... err, like it or not! I'm not Putin you down, honest! ????

Resurrection posted:

 

 

IB - I have no idea what a post Brexit UK will look like and make no pretences that I do. My vote was based on  my perception of the history of the EU, its impact on the UK, its future direction and its current structure. In short, I don't and didn't like it. I did live for five years in Belgium and travelled significantly. My passport was checked every time I left and arrived at Zaventem. I never felt that it was over intrusive and the real security that real borders gave to each country within then then EEC was worth the trivial hassle. When the borders opened I was initially happy as people like me and probably you posed no threat to anyone and was happy making a positive contribution to the companies and countries I worked in. The creeping political federalism was not on the agenda at that time and I was happy in the belief that the EEC was a positive influence for its members even though, as usual, the UK overpaid membership dues.

Anyone with a firing neurone can see that the open border scenario has been open door time to undesirables and the mass migrations encouraged by the likes of Tony Blair has destabilised almost every country in the EU. The rise of populism throughout Europe as well as anti-EU sentiment emphasises the disquiet felt and alienation of the masses to their political masters. If a Referendum was granted to any country not directly feeding from the EU's trough I suspect that Juncker would have much negotiating to do to stop the rats jumping off the ship.

 

On the question of borders there is a big difference between freedom of movement, which I believe to be good, and completely open borders, with potential negative aspects. The UK was never part of the Shenghen agreement and maintained its border controls at its ports. (The border between Northern Island and Eire is different, but I don’t think Eire is part of Shenghen, and not being physically connected to continental Europe it can easily maintain its own border controls, and I assume (though have no knowledge of) UK and Eire must have some form of mutual agreement regarding the external border controls applied by each other.

The right of access to the different social supportt and care arrangements in each different country are quite another matter, and for as long as what is provded is different I believe each country should retain the right to have limitations on access, but that is another subjecr.

Innocent Bystander posted:

The right of access to the different social supportt and care arrangements in each different country are quite another matter, and for as long as what is provded is different I believe each country should retain the right to have limitations on access, but that is another subject.

I may be incorrect, but its my understanding the UK could have done much more to restrict access to social support and even access to the NHS for EU citizens not working in the UK than they have done.  

Resurrection posted:

I find it very interesting in all the Parliamentary debates about all the housing we need when the actual reason for the demand is never ever allowed to be aired i.e. the arrival of a city the size of Newcastle every year.

IMO I am a rational right winger, not an irrational one, although some of you may beg to differ. ????

What you fail to note though is that the UK economy needs the vast majority of those people to continue growing.  The choice therefore is (somewhat) between continuing immigration and stagnating growth.

MDS posted:

Yes, I read about that today, Don.  But on this topic at least it was reported that ministers are very keen to stay part of Galileo so hopefully they will find a way of doing so during the detailed negotiations to come. 

Nice tasty looking piece of cake there...

fatcat posted:

Has Theressa May hit a lucky streak.

She gives a speech expaining to the EU how much they need the UK’s cooperation to deter any threat from Russia.

Within a couple weeks Russia unleash a nerve agent attack in the UK, just as the Brexit negotiations are reaching crunch time.

What’s the chances of that happening??????

/me hands out tin foil hats  :-)

Resurrection posted:

The 17.4 million delivered the majority for the 56.4 million...... err, like it or not! I'm not Putin you down, honest! ????

17.4 / 56.4 * 100 = a "majority" of 30.9%.

Hmm, most people (the majority!  ) would consider anything over 50% a majority and anything less than 50% to be a minority.  So the minority delivered the decision for the majority (this statement is mathematically correct even if the rules for deciding the result were written a different way).

Anyone in favour of dictatorship by a minority?

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

The 17.4 million delivered the majority for the 56.4 million...... err, like it or not! I'm not Putin you down, honest! ????

17.4 / 56.4 * 100 = a "majority" of 30.9%.

Hmm, most people (the majority!  ) would consider anything over 50% a majority and anything less than 50% to be a minority.  So the minority delivered the decision for the majority (this statement is mathematically correct even if the rules for deciding the result were written a different way).

Anyone in favour of dictatorship by a minority?

Anyone subject to the Government of this country and probably most other democratic countries.

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

The 17.4 million delivered the majority for the 56.4 million...... err, like it or not! I'm not Putin you down, honest! ????

17.4 / 56.4 * 100 = a "majority" of 30.9%.

Hmm, most people (the majority!  ) would consider anything over 50% a majority and anything less than 50% to be a minority.  So the minority delivered the decision for the majority (this statement is mathematically correct even if the rules for deciding the result were written a different way).

Anyone in favour of dictatorship by a minority?

Anyone subject to the Government of this country and probably most other democratic countries.

We don't have a democracy: we have a representative democracy - a VERY different thing.

I agree. Harping back to what the result of the EU referendum equates to in terms of the size of the population eligible to vote is flogging a dead horse. We live with a similar limitation to elect MPs and hence a government so  the result of the referendum is legitimate.

That said, I think the Government has a got a real cheek in maintaining a position that a simple majority, regardless of outturn, is sufficient to elect MPs, decide monumental decisions like the EU referendum and elect police commissioners (for which the turnout were pathetically low) , while seeking to crank up the majority and size of turnout needed when a union ballots for industrial action. Hypocrisy if ever I've seen it.  

Crikey Huge,

If you have been following this thread you will know that Resurrection is intelligent enough to understand the type of democracy we have in the UK. And no need for the capitals and underline in 'very' too.

Ray

It's all right, in amongst the real information, Resurrection and I have been exchanging lighthearted 'digs' with each other for some time.

I'm well aware they know the difference (and also that my comment about the 'majority' is both right and wrong at the same time, depending on how you define 'majority'; which was the point of it anyway!)

At times, we've both used hyperbole for effect and to 'stir the pot' a bit.

Edinburgh March for people’s vote on Brexit deal.

I ‘m pleased to see there are more people than just me who consider  the electorate should have a vote on the Brexit deal before it is a done deal.

not sure what the next step would be if we voted against such deal, but it would need to be set out before any vote, because it would significantly influence such a vote.

I appreciate the ardent Leavers will be horrified at the prospect of a further vote, but I consider it appropriate on two basic points,

the deal will define our future. Until we know the deal, we can’t imagine our future

the electorate has changed the past two years and will be further changed by next March. It’s therefore a different electorate, basically with a three-year demographic age-shift. many of the stale pale grey males have moved on to higher places and been replaced by fresh young teenagers. Teenagers of yesteryear have matured into young twenties etc.

I appreciate that resurrection won’t agree, but obviously others in Scotland  do!

And given the lack of information and misinformation (and worse) that were bandied about at the time of the referendum, with far, far more now known about what Brexit really entails, it is the only sensible and logical thing to do, to get a confirmation from the country that it really wants to go ahead.

And when I have challenged Resurrection on why there shouldn’t be one, the gist of his answers is that he just doesn’t want one - I believe it is simply that he is afraid that the original decision, that he so clearly wants, would be reversed. I say if the electorate really wants Brexit, as he has suggested is the evidence of the original referendum, then let it confirm and people like me will shut up on the subject. 

(My apologies to Resurrection if I have used the wrong gender.)

Don Atkinson posted:

Edinburgh March for people’s vote on Brexit deal.

I ‘m pleased to see there are more people than just me who consider  the electorate should have a vote on the Brexit deal before it is a done deal.

not sure what the next step would be if we voted against such deal, but it would need to be set out before any vote, because it would significantly influence such a vote.

I appreciate the ardent Leavers will be horrified at the prospect of a further vote, but I consider it appropriate on two basic points,

the deal will define our future. Until we know the deal, we can’t imagine our future

the electorate has changed the past two years and will be further changed by next March. It’s therefore a different electorate, basically with a three-year demographic age-shift. many of the stale pale grey males have moved on to higher places and been replaced by fresh young teenagers. Teenagers of yesteryear have matured into young twenties etc.

I appreciate that resurrection won’t agree, but obviously others in Scotland  do!

Resurrection is Scottish and does not agree. Annoyingly, my brother was amongst Sturgron’s entourage wasting their time and taxpayers’ money in China. My mother complained to me that he had to fly economy but, surprise, surprise he was upgraded to Club Class. 

Innocent Bystander posted:

And given the lack of information and misinformation (and worse) that were bandied about at the time of the referendum, with far, far more now known about what Brexit really entails, it is the only sensible and logical thing to do, to get a confirmation from the country that it really wants to go ahead.

And when I have challenged Resurrection on why there shouldn’t be one, the gist of his answers is that he just doesn’t want one - I believe it is simply that he is afraid that the original decision, that he so clearly wants, would be reversed. I say if the electorate really wants Brexit, as he has suggested is the evidence of the original referendum, then let it confirm and people like me will shut up on the subject. 

(My apologies to Resurrection if I have used the wrong gender.)

Resurrection is male and unapologetically heterosexual. He of course sees no need for another Referendum until well after the first one is fully implemented. By then a second Referendum will be welcomed as much as another one in Sturgeon’s Scotland.

Am not sure how many of you read the article in yesrerday’s Daily Telegraph about the shady dealings of Putin’s Gasprom making illegal deals that either favoured various European nations or punished others with gas pricing  and restricting any resale of the gas..

The EU knew of this but basically covered it up. Strangely, a big beneficiary was Merkel’s Germany. 

We should trust them shouldn't we?

After all the leavers have promised us a wonderful future and they wouldn't lie just to achieve their own political ends would they?  So therefore no reason for another vote.

Huge posted:

We should trust them shouldn't we?

After all the leavers have promised us a wonderful future and they wouldn't lie just to achieve their own political ends would they?  So therefore no reason for another vote.

Hilarious!!!! ????????????????????????

Resurrection posted:

Resurrection is male and unapologetically heterosexual. He of course sees no need for another Referendum until well after the first one is fully implemented. By then a second Referendum will be welcomed as much as another one in Sturgeon’s Scotland.

Am not sure how many of you read the article in yesrerday’s Daily Telegraph about the shady dealings of Putin’s Gasprom making illegal deals that either favoured various European nations or punished others with gas pricing  and restricting any resale of the gas..

The EU knew of this but basically covered it up. Strangely, a big beneficiary was Merkel’s Germany. 

Not sure what your sexual orientation has to do with anything, or why you feel you have to state that you don’t apologise for it (why would anyone, whatever their sexuality?). Gender was only relevant for the simplicity of pronoun choice.

I don’t know how true everything allgeged about EU is, but I quite believe a lot of back door deals are done - but then I am sure they are elsewhere, including Britain. 

As for gas, I never understood how any country - I’m thinking Britain here - could have the lack of foresight and wisdom to place itself potentially at the mercy of foreign powers should they wish to hold us to ransom  for any reason - but that was a consequence of  selling off utilities.

As an aside, I have Scottish blood in me, but don’t understand why Scotland seems always to be run by fish (Sturgeon following Salmon). Is there any significance in that?