Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted:

 I doubt that much more than half that number would say “leave” (which is why Resurrection is petrified of a confirmation referendum).

 

Ah, what's it like in that bubble of illusion with its rarified atmosphere that keeps you high enough to live with such false hope? I don't know how many times I have to tell you, IB, once we re completely through Brexit you can go looking for your next referendum, of which I have no fear. After all, you will never reach the 66% of votes you will need to win. 

If you don’t know how many times you have said I can go looking for a referndum after Brexit, I’ll refresh your memory: none. You did mention a referendum to rejoin once or possibly twice yesterday, so maybe that is what you meant.

 do note note that you have no fear of a referendum after Brexit, indeed you said that yesterday, and I have never suggested you are - please refer to my observation on that specific matter yesterday, after you indicated that 66% would be acceptable to you as the proportion to carry a vote to rejoin - to which I note you didn’t respond.

What you clearly ARE afraid of is a confirmation referendum before actually Brexiting, and I fully understand that, because it would yield a very strong vote against Brexit, revealing the true figure wanting it to be far fewer than the 17.4 million who stuck leave on their ballot papers in after that farce of a referendum campaign.

Nope, too many words, please be more concise. My short attention span can’t handle it.

Odd aberration, isn’t it: your attention span manages long diatribes spouting ridiculous dogma, but can’t cope when reading something that requires you to recognise facts.

I was in the pub at the time and my attention was focused on foamier things! Now, what were you saying...................?

Oh yes, it was a cut and paste of everything you have said before. I did respond to the Referendum question and did say that post real Brexit you can, should Parliament say so, have another referendum as long as you get 66% of the vote to b able to rejoin the EU (spit!). Might not have been you you directly, but I did say it and this is at least the third time. And you are right, I have no interest or desire for your confirmation Referendum and never will.

I’m not sure if you are wilfully distorting things or or are so stuck in your fixed blinkered mindset - others I am sure will assess for themselves, but I have never suggested a rejoin vote, indeed I  suggested calls for one wouldn’t happen, but you seem set on inviting one for some reason. 

But it is abundantly clear that you don’t want a co firm story referendum before Breciting, clearly recognising fit all your rhetoric that the vote for leaving will without any doubt at all have fallen considerably below the original 17.4 million, and it is inevitable that you would, in your terminology, lose - and roundly so.

I have exhausted all   I have to say on this particular matter, so I suggest you just digest this and recognise reality. 

There may not be a confirmatory referendum, but the country has lost if it Brexits, and it is the fault of those who misled the British public at the time of the original referendum, and of the incompetent government of the day.

 

I’m not sure if you are wilfully distorting things or or are so stuck in your fixed blinkered mindset - others I am sure will assess for themselves, but I have never suggested a rejoin vote, indeed I  suggested calls for one wouldn’t happen, but you seem set on inviting one for some reason. 

But it is abundantly clear that you don’t want a co firm story referendum before Breciting, clearly recognising fit all your rhetoric that the vote for leaving will without any doubt at all have fallen considerably below the original 17.4 million, and it is inevitable that you would, in your terminology, lose - and roundly so.

I have exhausted all   I have to say on this particular matter, so I suggest you just digest this and recognise reality. 

There may not be a confirmatory referendum, but the country has lost if it Brexits, and it is the fault of those who misled the British public at the time of the original referendum, and of the incompetent government of the day.

Your self belief and conviction is laudatory. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that a theoretical confirmatory or whatever Referendum vote would deliver a complete KO to the hopes and aspirations of the Remainers. However, as you Remainers have never admitted defeat even for the first Referendum, I, for one, am not going to give any of you a solitary inch in your manouevres to get us back into Juncker's Kleptocracy. Why should I?

The rules of the game were defined by Cameron and accepted by Parliament. If the game had gone the other way I assure you this incredibly lengthy conversation would never have started. I, for one, would have shrugged my shoulders, accepted the result and sat back to await the complete car crash that will envelope Europe through the machinations of the Eurocracy to try to fit 27 square pegs into one EU sized hole and much of Africa would continue to be invited to add to the fun, but none of those 'unfortunates' from Africa will be invited to Poland, Hungary, Lithuania or in fact any of the former Soviet bloc as their enthusiasm for foreign invaders is understandably marginal after their 50 years of being under the Russian yoke.

Tell you what, can we please have a confirmatory referendum on accepting 350,000 extra people into the UK every year, and I will happily allow it to have a 66% majority for rejection to be the winning line? Can't say any fairer than that. Shall me, you and all of the other protagonists in this thread be happy to subscribe to this? If not, why not? And, as an added bonus I will be happy to accept any reasonable person from any country anywhere in the world on the proviso that for every one of them their country will have to have accepted a corresponding applicant from the UK. Managed immigration: perfect.

Try to understand that the people who voted Leave were not manipulated or deluded by the politicians, they made their own minds up and came to a very sensible conclusion IMHO.

Innocent Bystander posted:

 

Nope, too many words, please be more concise. My short attention span can’t handle it.

Odd aberration, isn’t it: your attention span manages long diatribes spouting ridiculous dogma, but can’t cope when reading something that requires you to recognise facts.

IB, this is a recently identified but poorly understood clinical condition - Brexitus Interturbatio. Sufferers experience a state of mild to severe cognitive impairment, and the condition is generally not amenable to treatment, particularly in cohorts of patients at the upper end of the age demographic.

Symptoms include:

* repetition of key phrases, usually but not always in a state of agitation. Researchers have identified many of these, but perhaps the most common is "We won, you lost".

* selective hearing loss, especially when exposed to values that do not wholly accord with their life experience, especially in cases where this is limited. 

* the tendency for sufferers to avoid contact with people outside of their immediate peer group, as this may make them intensely uncomfortable and agitated.

* the loss of intellectual capacity and ability to focus on reality. 

* an increased tendency to pursue harmful and addictive activities, for example drinking alcohol to excess, especially in a public setting 

It is believed that the condition may be contracted in early life, and lie dormant for many years, even decades. Conditions known to exacerbate or accelerate the progression of the disease include contact with external agents such social media (especially where source material may be determined to originate from the Russian Federation), and reading popular news media, where text is either in part or wholly in upper case letters (especially where these media sources purport to advocate traditional English values but where the owners of the media groups are domiciled in other countries).

Sufferers at advanced stages of the disease respond to the common cognitive test used by clinicians "Who is the current Prime Minister?" with the answer "Benjamin Disraeli", and believe that the British Empire must pursue its ultimate destiny by increasing trade with Cathay, Mesopotamia and Persia. They develop the tendency to lie frequently and incontinently, with progressively decreasing insight into their own behaviour, and how this impacts on others. Social exclusion can be a consequence for many sufferers, and as a consequence they may attempt to hide symptoms of the disease from those in their immediate family, or in social and work environments.

Although a relatively new phenomenon, and largely demonstrated by patients within the British Isles, researchers have noted the increased diagnosis of similar cognitive dysfunction within Europe, and public health authorities are dedicating considerable resources to understanding the disease, to mitigate the likelihood of its spread to mainland Europe. However, early studies indicate that the cortexes of mainland Europeans are largely resistant to the known pathogens, making this a peculiarly English disease.

Duncan Mann posted:

Symptoms include:

* repetition of key phrases, usually but not always in a state of agitation. Researchers have identified many of these, but perhaps the most common is "We won, you lost".

Dont forget “Brexit means Brexit” and “No deal is better than a bad deal”.

Resurrection posted:

Try to understand that the people who voted Leave were not manipulated or deluded by the politicians, they made their own minds up and came to a very sensible conclusion IMHO.

This is a very doubtful statement! Time and again proves that we are actually manipulated by politicians, social media, Russian hackers, etc. Most recent example is the Cambridge Analytica is caught red handed harvesting personal FB data to influence the Brexit referendum.

Resurrection posted:

 

Try to understand that the people who voted Leave were not manipulated or deluded by the politicians, they made their own minds up and came to a very sensible conclusion IMHO.

From the Washington Post, verbatim, June 24th 2016:

Awakening to a stock market plunge and a precipitous decline in the value of the pound that Britain hasn't seen in more than 30 years, voters now face a series of economic shocks that analysts say will only worsen before they improve. The consequences of the leave vote will be felt worldwide, even here in the United States, and some British voters say they now regret casting a ballot in favor of Brexit.

"Even though I voted to leave, this morning I woke up and I just — the reality did actually hit me," one woman told the news channel ITV News. "If I'd had the opportunity to vote again, it would be to stay."

That confusion over what Brexit might mean for the country's economy appears to have been reflected across the United Kingdom on Thursday. Google reported sharp upticks in searches not only related to the ballot measure but also about basic questions concerning the implications of the vote. At about 1 a.m. Eastern time, about eight hours after the polls closed, Google reported that searches for "what happens if we leave the EU" had more than tripled.

(Google Trends)

(Google Trends)

The run-up to the vote was marked by a bitterly divided campaign, one that was as much about immigration fears as it was about the global economy.

But despite the all-out attempts by either side to court voters, Britons were not only mystified by what would happen if they left the E.U.— many seemed not to even know what the European Union is.

Duncan Mann posted:

Resurrection posted:

 

Try to understand that the people who voted Leave were not manipulated or deluded by the politicians, they made their own minds up and came to a very sensible conclusion IMHO.

From the Washington Post, verbatim, June 24th 2016:

Awakening to a stock market plunge and a precipitous decline in the value of the pound that Britain hasn't seen in more than 30 years, voters now face a series of economic shocks that analysts say will only worsen before they improve. The consequences of the leave vote will be felt worldwide, even here in the United States, and some British voters say they now regret casting a ballot in favor of Brexit.

"Even though I voted to leave, this morning I woke up and I just — the reality did actually hit me," one woman told the news channel ITV News. "If I'd had the opportunity to vote again, it would be to stay."

That confusion over what Brexit might mean for the country's economy appears to have been reflected across the United Kingdom on Thursday. Google reported sharp upticks in searches not only related to the ballot measure but also about basic questions concerning the implications of the vote. At about 1 a.m. Eastern time, about eight hours after the polls closed, Google reported that searches for "what happens if we leave the EU" had more than tripled.

(Google Trends)

(Google Trends)

The run-up to the vote was marked by a bitterly divided campaign, one that was as much about immigration fears as it was about the global economy.

But despite the all-out attempts by either side to court voters, Britons were not only mystified by what would happen if they left the E.U.— many seemed not to even know what the European Union is.

When I’m not taunting you lot I am very much involved with my own stocks and shares which continue to do very well . What can I say? And lay off the spurious quotes and propaganda from the very much anti-Brexit MSM. ????

Resurrection posted:

, I, for one, am not going to give any of you a solitary inch in your manouevres to get us back into Juncker's Kleptocracy. Why should I?

 

there you go again, talking as if people suggest “getting back in” - I think you’re the only one on here that has even mentioned that as something people might seek. And anyway , would it be up to you?

As for a confirmatory referendum, you've said many times something to the effect that you won’t give in to calls for one. Somehow I doubt your view will have any influence on a decision on that, so as you won’t accept that the original referendum was at all flawed or that people voted to give government a shake up, not expecting or wanting that to carry the vote even though it is known for a fact, there is no point carrying on the conversation.

Enjoy your closeted hard right anti-EU anti-immigration isolationist views, but don’t expect good to come of them. I am sure you will exercise your right to el freedom of speech and spout them forth again.

Cheers

When we do leave, and I fear it is a when, I can't see the UK ever going back.  Regardless of the fate of the UK, and I think our economy will suffer for many years, there probably will be some soul-searching among the senior political leaders within the EU as to how the EU could lose a 'premier league' member. I suspect some reform will take place, possibility an inner and outer circle, the former to appease those member states that really want closer integration and political union, even tax rate harmonisation. The outer circle will be for members states that are happy to enjoy the benefits of the EU 'as is' and want to go no further.  The tragedy will be that with the right will the UK government could probably have led and achieved such reform from within the EU, and all the pain and cost for the UK and EU could have been avoided.   Cameron and the Conservative party must carry much of the blame for this, and I think history will judge their role harshly.  

MDS posted:

When we do leave, and I fear it is a when, I can't see the UK ever going back.  Regardless of the fate of the UK, and I think our economy will suffer for many years, there probably will be some soul-searching among the senior political leaders within the EU as to how the EU could lose a 'premier league' member. I suspect some reform will take place, possibility an inner and outer circle, the former to appease those member states that really want closer integration and political union, even tax rate harmonisation. The outer circle will be for members states that are happy to enjoy the benefits of the EU 'as is' and want to go no further.  The tragedy will be that with the right will the UK government could probably have led and achieved such reform from within the EU, and all the pain and cost for the UK and EU could have been avoided.   Cameron and the Conservative party must carry much of the blame for this, and I think history will judge their role harshly.  

I partially agree with you MDS. If the EU had not conspired to becoming a supranational state at the expense of the individual member countries and if, since 1975, we had not been expected to bear so much of the cost of its budget, and if we had not been so enthusiastic in implementing every diktat mandated by the EU from their unelected Council of Ministers then we might have had a workable, supportable institution. The idea that with just a little more integration all will be well with the world is naive to say the least.

Merkel is a very weakened woman whose authority, at least in Germany, is very much on the wane. Macron may be wandering the world stage like that other liberal clown Trudeau, but his own popularity in France is down over 30 points since he opportunistically grasped power last year, and there is plenty trouble on the streets of France from the unions and workers who are not too happy  with his authoritarian changes. 

If you are not  interested in the needs and wishes  of the natives and minions then they will rebel. In current parlance, if you are one of the confident, comfortable 'anywheres' then you might still see the idea of supranational states where everyone joyfully moves, integrates and coexists as worth the sacrifices that are expected to be made by the 'somewheres', who are not very happy at alll to be expected to move, migrate, change their mores, or worse, see themselves replaced by imported 'somewheres', then you will have friction and lots of it. 

There will be no further tighter integration between any of the inner core of the EU because the electorates of the individual states will simply remove those that are mandating this disgraceful hijack of democracy dressed up as Nirvana because they are quite fed up of the snake oil political salesmen purveying thrir nonsense. The rise of populism so despised by the liberal left  is exactly what it says on the tin: it is the populus rebelling against against an arrogant elite behaving like effete, entitled feudal overlords for whom the little people are simply the help at best and an expendable impediment to their 'progress' at worst. 

You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour.  

Resurrection posted: 

There will be no further tighter integration between any of the inner core of the EU because the electorates of the individual states will simply remove those that are mandating this disgraceful hijack of democracy dressed up as Nirvana because they are quite fed up of the snake oil political salesmen purveying thrir nonsense. .   

If this had been perceived to be true by voters at the time of the referendum I believe significantly fewer would have voted ‘yes’. Certainly amongst people with whom I’ve discussed Brexit, the creeping centralisation has seemed to have been the single biggest concern - which is not saying that any of said people (including me) think EU otherwise is perfect - far from it, but addressing the problems internally is better than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. OF course, this would make no difference to people who could see no benefit of the EU, with the customs union, free trade, common laws relating to things like safety of food and other goods and to environmental pollution that can affect neighbouring states, perhaps living in an insular world where all that matters is what visibly directly affects them or their families.

Resurrection posted:

"You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour."  

I see you do have something in common with a certain DT. 'Illeism (referring to oneself in the third person) is often said by psychologists to be a sure sign of egotism or narcissism.

Surely not, or does this explain a lot about some of your posts? 

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour."  

I see you do have something in common with a certain DT. 'Illeism (referring to oneself in the third person) is often said by psychologists to be a sure sign of egotism or narcissism.

Surely not, or does this explain a lot about some of your posts? 

Sometimes I amuse myself with what I write even if it is not to everyone's taste. However, egotism is not real in my character. I am all too aware with my shortcomings and weaknesses, of which there are plenty. I was not gifted with great physical or sporting ability or supreme intellectual capacity; in fact I believe I have a poor memory for studying except on Brexit of course. Am also a bit too blunt for my own good. Nah, am a lousy narcissist, but do like wordplay and honestly do not take it personally if you do get one over on me, which of course is hardly ever. 

In fact you would probably notice that I never ever challenge any of you on your HiFi postings as I do not believe I have a deep enough musical or technical knowledge. Obviously I do like and admire music in all its forms and people who have the talent to make and produce it.

I can understand some people being critical of the EU but one of the criticisms often levelled at it is it is undemocratic.  For example, Resurrection uses the term "unelected Council of Ministers".  I always find this irritating because it is unjustified.  For sure, the Commission isn't elected but then it is the equivalent of the  EU's civil service , and civil servants aren't elected in members states.  However, apart from the obviously elected European Parliament, the ministers attending the various councils are elected, not to those particular councils but in their respective member states. For example, Phillip Hammond attends ECOFIN as the UK's representative. Is it fair to criticise his attendance on the basis that no one elected him to fulfil this specific role? If it is, it would also be fair to say 'he shouldn't be Chancellor, because no-one elected him to fill that position'. That's the way democracy works in member states. Similarly judges at the ECJ are not elected but then neither are the judiciary in the UK. I think this often levelled criticism is either used by those who don't understand how the EU institutions work or who do but chose to ignore the truth because they know the argument massages the prejudices of those who are anti the EU.       

I find it somehow both shocking and unsurprising at the same time that most Brexit debates I come across, including the one here, seem mostly to be concerned with either troll jousting or re-running aspects of the pre-vote debate.

Big things are happening to which little attention ever gets paid.  For example a few days ago there was a spat because the govt tried to use Brexit as an opportunity to stealth-destroy some very important human rights legislation.  It's called the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if you care to have a google.  If you do, Google news will point out that the Lords defeated the govt's attempt to scrap it.  Cue standard arguments such as 'it's not necessary because the same stuff will be covered by other legislation' or 'it'll be fine, trust us and our chosen independent assessor'.

This is pretty big deal stuff.  I signed a petition about it.  Yet virtually no visible mention was made of it among those who happily debate who 'won' and so on.  It's astonishing that more wasn't made of it in the media.

Maybe the continued focus on the vote itself is actually a good thing, though - it's probably part of why there's a growing awareness of the call for a proper, meaningful confirmatory referendum on the terms reached (something I argued for on this thread a loooooong way back).

Resurrection posted:

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour."  

I see you do have something in common with a certain DT. 'Illeism (referring to oneself in the third person) is often said by psychologists to be a sure sign of egotism or narcissism.

Surely not, or does this explain a lot about some of your posts? 

Sometimes I amuse myself with what I write even if it is not to everyone's taste. However, egotism is not real in my character. I am all too aware with my shortcomings and weaknesses, of which there are plenty. I was not gifted with great physical or sporting ability or supreme intellectual capacity; in fact I believe I have a poor memory for studying except on Brexit of course. Am also a bit too blunt for my own good. Nah, am a lousy narcissist, but do like wordplay and honestly do not take it personally if you do get one over on me, which of course is hardly ever. 

In fact you would probably notice that I never ever challenge any of you on your HiFi postings as I do not believe I have a deep enough musical or technical knowledge. Obviously I do like and admire music in all its forms and people who have the talent to make and produce it.

Interesting example of narcissism there!  

Dave***t posted:

I find it somehow both shocking and unsurprising at the same time that most Brexit debates I come across, including the one here, seem mostly to be concerned with either troll jousting or re-running aspects of the pre-vote debate.

Big things are happening to which little attention ever gets paid.  For example a few days ago there was a spat because the govt tried to use Brexit as an opportunity to stealth-destroy some very important human rights legislation.  It's called the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if you care to have a google.  If you do, Google news will point out that the Lords defeated the govt's attempt to scrap it.  Cue standard arguments such as 'it's not necessary because the same stuff will be covered by other legislation' or 'it'll be fine, trust us and our chosen independent assessor'.

This is pretty big deal stuff.  I signed a petition about it.  Yet virtually no visible mention was made of it among those who happily debate who 'won' and so on.  It's astonishing that more wasn't made of it in the media.

 

A very good justification for the Upper House, despite what the Brexiteers like Rees-Mogg imply. 

MDS posted:

Dave***t posted:

I find it somehow both shocking and unsurprising at the same time that most Brexit debates I come across, including the one here, seem mostly to be concerned with either troll jousting or re-running aspects of the pre-vote debate.

Big things are happening to which little attention ever gets paid.  For example a few days ago there was a spat because the govt tried to use Brexit as an opportunity to stealth-destroy some very important human rights legislation.  It's called the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if you care to have a google.  If you do, Google news will point out that the Lords defeated the govt's attempt to scrap it.  Cue standard arguments such as 'it's not necessary because the same stuff will be covered by other legislation' or 'it'll be fine, trust us and our chosen independent assessor'.

This is pretty big deal stuff.  I signed a petition about it.  Yet virtually no visible mention was made of it among those who happily debate who 'won' and so on.  It's astonishing that more wasn't made of it in the media.

 

A very good justification for the Upper House, despite what the Brexiteers like Rees-Mogg imply. 

Ah, one JRM worth a hundred lords a leaping, particularly when they are of the quality of Mandelsom, the KInnocks, Chakrabarti, Prescott, Adonis and all the Liberals whose names I never knew anyway.

Best never to give a Referendum on the Lords or the £300 a day parasites would be finished. 

Dave***t posted:

I find it somehow both shocking and unsurprising at the same time that most Brexit debates I come across, including the one here, seem mostly to be concerned with either troll jousting or re-running aspects of the pre-vote debate.

Big things are happening to which little attention ever gets paid.  For example a few days ago there was a spat because the govt tried to use Brexit as an opportunity to stealth-destroy some very important human rights legislation.  It's called the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if you care to have a google.  If you do, Google news will point out that the Lords defeated the govt's attempt to scrap it.  Cue standard arguments such as 'it's not necessary because the same stuff will be covered by other legislation' or 'it'll be fine, trust us and our chosen independent assessor'.

This is pretty big deal stuff.  I signed a petition about it.  Yet virtually no visible mention was made of it among those who happily debate who 'won' and so on.  It's astonishing that more wasn't made of it in the media.

Maybe the continued focus on the vote itself is actually a good thing, though - it's probably part of why there's a growing awareness of the call for a proper, meaningful confirmatory referendum on the terms reached (something I argued for on this thread a loooooong way back).

Dave,

There are (literally) hundreds of very, very important issues that need very careful consideration regarding our leaving the EU. I have highlighted a few that I have been concerned about. They never make it into the headline media reports (galileo made it into the BBC's subsidiary news but that's about it !) despite the fact that they are crucial to our future.

Far more importantly, the future consequences of these issues with respect to Remaining or Leaving are never articulated so that even our politicians are aware of them, never mind understanding them. As to the "man in the Clapham omnibus...." well, I suppose it's too much to expect him to even want to know about these issues.

The Gov has said that MPs will be given a "meaningful" vote. I would like to think this will be a free vote, not a three-line-whip, and that "meaningful" will include the option to Remain. (Our MPs need to consider the National interest of 65m people, not just the wishes of c.17.5m voters in the summer of 2016)

Resurrection posted:

MDS posted:

When we do leave, and I fear it is a when, I can't see the UK ever going back.  Regardless of the fate of the UK, and I think our economy will suffer for many years, there probably will be some soul-searching among the senior political leaders within the EU as to how the EU could lose a 'premier league' member. I suspect some reform will take place, possibility an inner and outer circle, the former to appease those member states that really want closer integration and political union, even tax rate harmonisation. The outer circle will be for members states that are happy to enjoy the benefits of the EU 'as is' and want to go no further.  The tragedy will be that with the right will the UK government could probably have led and achieved such reform from within the EU, and all the pain and cost for the UK and EU could have been avoided.   Cameron and the Conservative party must carry much of the blame for this, and I think history will judge their role harshly.  

I partially agree with you MDS. If the EU had not conspired to becoming a supranational state at the expense of the individual member countries and if, since 1975, we had not been expected to bear so much of the cost of its budget, and if we had not been so enthusiastic in implementing every diktat mandated by the EU from their unelected Council of Ministers then we might have had a workable, supportable institution. The idea that with just a little more integration all will be well with the world is naive to say the least.

Merkel is a very weakened woman whose authority, at least in Germany, is very much on the wane. Macron may be wandering the world stage like that other liberal clown Trudeau, but his own popularity in France is down over 30 points since he opportunistically grasped power last year, and there is plenty trouble on the streets of France from the unions and workers who are not too happy  with his authoritarian changes. 

If you are not  interested in the needs and wishes  of the natives and minions then they will rebel. In current parlance, if you are one of the confident, comfortable 'anywheres' then you might still see the idea of supranational states where everyone joyfully moves, integrates and coexists as worth the sacrifices that are expected to be made by the 'somewheres', who are not very happy at alll to be expected to move, migrate, change their mores, or worse, see themselves replaced by imported 'somewheres', then you will have friction and lots of it. 

There will be no further tighter integration between any of the inner core of the EU because the electorates of the individual states will simply remove those that are mandating this disgraceful hijack of democracy dressed up as Nirvana because they are quite fed up of the snake oil political salesmen purveying thrir nonsense. The rise of populism so despised by the liberal left  is exactly what it says on the tin:it is the populus rebelling against against an arrogant elite behaving like effete, entitled feudal overlords for whom the little people are simply the help at best and an expendable impediment to their 'progress' at worst. 

You see, Resurrection is not so right wing as to have forgotten his roots or the individual people who mandated politicians to look after the electorate' interests and not grandiose political experiments guaranteed to destabilise and probably destroy the societies that were built by centuries of human endeavour.  

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

 

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

You, of course would prefer Corbyn, McDonnell, Nugee and Abbott. Unbelievable!

The Gov has said that MPs will be given a "meaningful" vote. I would like to think this will be a free vote, not a three-line-whip, and that "meaningful" will include the option to Remain. (Our MPs need to consider the National interest of 65m people, not just the wishes of c.17.5m voters in the summer of 2016)

 

Obviously the last General Election was a travesty too as the Conservatives only got 13.6 million votes and Labour 12.8 million. Hardly representative of the 65 million are they? Logic and Remainers are on completely separate planets. It all sounds so trite and right when you are in complete agreement with one another, eh!

Resurrection posted:

 

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

You, of course would prefer Corbyn, McDonnell, Nugee and Abbott. Unbelievable!

I think I'd rather have Russ Abbott in the Home Office than Diane! 

Resurrection posted:

 

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

You, of course would prefer Corbyn, McDonnell, Nugee and Abbott. Unbelievable!

The converse of 'A' isn't necessarily 'B'.

MDS posted:

Resurrection posted:

 

You are of course referring to the likes of JRM, Boris, Redwood and Gove.

God help us and this Nation if, or when, any of this lot get to No10 or 11.

You, of course would prefer Corbyn, McDonnell, Nugee and Abbott. Unbelievable!

I think I'd rather have Russ Abbott in the Home Office than Diane! 

Ha! Ha! me too.