Current Affairs EU In or Out

[peteblue]

If you look at the underlying reasons behind this "2% growth" etc. you'll see why it's happening and why it can't be sustained.

We're in the calm before the storm right now. I see it as someone desperately treading water, making headway and keeping well above water for now, but in an hours time they'll be exhausted and drown.

And you were demanding objective facts and not subjective opinion......the economy can change overnight depending upon events, we have discussed this before, so if Putin invades Eastern Europe or Trump decides to blockade China or someone blew up the Bank of England, or major banks fell over again, markets and the economy would be affected. No one can predict it. If they could they would be the richest people on the planet.......

 

[Number_25]

First bullet point: One cannot choose to leave an organisation, and then pick and choose which of the individual constituent parts one wishes to retain, simply for the selfish idea that it would be a good idea to retain it/them.

This would be correct, if only for the fact that the EU and the ESM are two completely separate organisations.

Binary. What a stupid thing that has been touted for hundreds of pages across this thread, as if it is some kind of uber-important matter! A referendum is a referendum is a referendum. The people voted. The Government took note and proceeded to move forward based on the majority vote of the British people (and in case you haven't read through all of this thread - and I don't expect you to have done so given its length - it has been stated quite clearly before that those who did not vote are classed as abstentions, which is a valid option of a democratic vote). I have no problem with people saying that they are against leaving the EU (although why they would want us to remain part of that corrupt organisation for one second baffles me), but I find the spurious points advanced in this thread time and time and time again, with newer entrants advancing the same old same old, as tiresome...

Are you unable to read? The very first thing I stated is that "I am in no way saying that we shouldn't leave the EU. Despite the fact that I am an avid remainder, I accept that a small majority of the people that voted in June voted for us to leave it and therefore it must happen."

This is completely separate issue to the result of the EU referendum. A democratic motion was not put forward in regards to our membership of the ESM - in fact it was a key manifesto pledge a year prior of our acting government.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I didn't say that, but I knew that you would respond in the way you did. For me the people of the UK are those that were born here, those that legally chose to live here, those UK people who have decided to retire in warmer climates and those whose work takes them elsewhere (business, armed forces etc).......

But leaving the EU was not a choice of the majority of those people, was it? It was the choice of a majority of those who were allowed to, and chose to vote in the referendum.

Lets be honest here, he, and his successor, are tools of this government. No more, no less. The notion that they represent the people you mention is fanciful in the extreme.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

You are perhaps hung by your own petard by your first sentence...

The financial 'experts' (and I use that term very loosely, given their track record) got it wrong. Yes, exactly.

Your second paragraph, again exactly, for the rreason no one can say what the future holds 100%...

Your last sentence. No she did not. There is never an over-riding obligation for a PM to have to consult Parliament and gain approval on every single issue that comes before them. You may not have sen it in a previous post of mine, since it is now buried deep in this thread, but there is such a thing as an 'Order in Council', which the PM can invoke to achieve something. Thatcher used it to remove from the trade union members in GCHQ the 'right of association' in the 1980s. Ergo May did not undermine our Parliamentary democracy, she sought to move forward with the democratic vote of the UK, but did not invoke an Order in Council. So someone wasted around 3 months or more in slowing down the process - wonderful, NOT!!!

You speak as if their entire economic modelling was wrong, it wasn't, they just miscalculated the intangible of consumer confidence. It held up way better than expected.

May could have accepted the fact that Parliament had the right to vote on her plans, she chose not to and then lost in the High Court, she could have then conceded, she chose not to, and then lost in the Supreme Court. Which means by definition that she was acting outside of our Parliamentary democracy, as confirmed by the highest court in the land. Which makes your entire attempt at justifying her actions laughable, as what you're saying is patently incorrect in this context.

People like you make me cringe, shouting about the will of the people and democracy on one breath and then trying to say that the PM attempting to undermine our parliamentary democracy is sound on the next.

For the record, what we gained was a degree of transparency, a white paper which will be discussed and amended, and ultimately a vote on the final deal in the House, which I doubt she'd have put on the table if it wasn't for the legal challenge.

 

[peteblue]

But leaving the EU was not a choice of the majority of those people, was it? It was the choice of a majority of those who were allowed to, and chose to vote in the referendum.

Lets be honest here, he, and his successor, are tools of this government. No more, no less. The notion that they represent the people you mention is fanciful in the extreme.

I think you are getting hung up on the word represent. I used it in the sense of 1. You interpreted it as in the sense of 2.

verb

1. 1.
   be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), especially in an official capacity.
   "for purposes of litigation, an infant can and must be represented by an adult"
   synonyms: be elected by, be the councillor/MP for, have the vote of More
   
   
2. 2.
   constitute; amount to.
   "this figure represents eleven per cent of the company's total sales"
   synonyms: constitute, be, amount to, mean, be regarded as
   "for many people, ageing represents a threat to their independence"
   
   

 

[Old Blue 2]

This would be correct, if only for the fact that the EU and the ESM are two completely separate organisations.



Are you unable to read? The very first thing I stated is that "I am in no way saying that we shouldn't leave the EU. Despite the fact that I am an avid remainder, I accept that a small majority of the people that voted in June voted for us to leave it and therefore it must happen."

This is completely separate issue to the result of the EU referendum. A democratic motion was not put forward in regards to our membership of the ESM - in fact it was a key manifesto pledge a year prior of our acting government.

"...Are you unable to read?..." Don't be so insulting!!! I would turn your insulting comment back on you, and say did you not read what I was commenting on? To reiterate: the use of this word 'binary' as if it is something of importance. It is not. It was a referendum vote, and the outcome of that vote is now being followed by the Government. Simply that, nothing else. Don't obfuscate issues with red herrings, because that's what you have been doing in your posts in this thread in recent times.

 

[Old Blue 2]

You speak as if their entire economic modelling was wrong, it wasn't, they just miscalculated the intangible of consumer confidence. It held up way better than expected.

May could have accepted the fact that Parliament had the right to vote on her plans, she chose not to and then lost in the High Court, she could have then conceded, she chose not to, and then lost in the Supreme Court. Which means by definition that she was acting outside of our Parliamentary democracy, as confirmed by the highest court in the land. Which makes your entire attempt at justifying her actions laughable, as what you're saying is patently incorrect in this context.

People like you make me cringe, shouting about the will of the people and democracy on one breath and then trying to say that the PM attempting to undermine our parliamentary democracy is sound on the next.

For the record, what we gained was a degree of transparency, a white paper which will be discussed and amended, and ultimately a vote on the final deal in the House, which I doubt she'd have put on the table if it wasn't for the legal challenge.

You've argued against me, and others who have voted 'Leave' al the way in this thread, so no surprise there.

I've made you cringe? Really? Pathetic. I simply feel sorry for you, and others like you, who continue to rail against the vote and the ramifications of it in this thread.

There are some, like Wayne, who advance reasoned points in support of their views. There are others, like you, who just want to slag off 'Leavers' at every turn. As I said, pathetic!

And by the way, an 'Order in Council' is part of the overall Governmental process. It is not undermining any Parliamentary democracy. Get it right...

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

You've argued against me, and others who have voted 'Leave' al the way in this thread, so no surprise there.

I've made you cringe? Really? Pathetic. I simply feel sorry for you, and others like you, who continue to rail against the vote and the remifications of it in this thread.

There are some, like Wayne, who advance reasoned points in support of their views. There are others, like you, who just want to [Poor language removed] off 'Leavers' at every turn. As I said, pathetic!

And by the way, an 'Order in Council' is part of the overall Governmental process. It is not undermining any Parliamentary democracy. Get it right...

No actual point then, just a rant, Ok that's fairly standard from you. Feel free to actually counter the points made if you wish.

Oh and your last sentence, what part of the High Court and Supreme Courts rulings are you disputing exactly? As what she was trying to do in the context of Article 50 was deemed to go against our Parliamentary democracy, ergo she was wrong, ergo your continued justification of it is wrong. She lost in Court - twice.

 

[Joey66]

But leaving the EU was not a choice of the majority of those people, was it? It was the choice of a majority of those who were allowed to, and chose to vote in the referendum.

Lets be honest here, he, and his successor, are tools of this government. No more, no less. The notion that they represent the people you mention is fanciful in the extreme.

Bruce true born scots were not allowed in England to vote in their referendum , and thats closer to home!

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

"...Are you unable to read?..." Don't be so insulting!!! I would turn your insulting comment back on you, and say did you not read what I was commenting on? To reiterate: the use of this word 'binary' as if it is something of importance. It is not. It was a referendum vote, and the outcome of that vote is now being followed by the Government. Simply that, nothing else. Don't obfuscate issues with red herrings, because that's what you have been doing in your posts in this thread in recent times.

The fact that the referendum wasn't made binary is significant though, as why did they choose to make it thus?

They could have easily made it binary, as they did with the 2011 electoral reform referendum. They chose not to with the EU vote.

Obviously post the vote it would have been political suicide to go against the result, but the fact that they chose not to make it binary in the first place is of relevance as they could have legally ignored it, or shelved it, should they have seen fit.

 

[Old Blue 2]

No actual point then, just a rant, Ok that's fairly standard from you. Feel free to actually counter the points made if you wish.

Oh and your last sentence, what part of the High Court and Supreme Courts rulings are you disputing exactly? As what she was trying to do in the context of Article 50 was deemed to go against our Parliamentary democracy, ergo she was wrong, ergo your continued justification of it is wrong. She lost in Court - twice.

"...No actual point then, just a rant, Ok that's fairly standard from you..." What a load of rubbish from you, as usual. QED...

Regarding your second paragraph, are you saying that people should not have a view with regard to the judicial process getting involved with Parliamentary process? As I have said, you are quite happy to rail against those who are happy with leaving the EU, yet you think that it is wrong for others to be in any way critical of the judicial process. Hypocrite. There are prefectly reasonable grounds for an argument to be advanced that the Judicial system of the courts should be outwith the working of Government.

 

[Old Blue 2]

The fact that the referendum wasn't made binary is significant though, as why did they choose to make it thus?

They could have easily made it binary, as they did with the 2011 electoral reform referendum. They chose not to with the EU vote.

Obviously post the vote it would have been political suicide to go against the result, but the fact that they chose not to make it binary in the first place is of relevance as they could have legally ignored it, or shelved it, should they have seen fit.

Let's hope Everton are binary tomorrow. 1-0 win would do me...!!!

 

[peteblue]

No actual point then, just a rant, Ok that's fairly standard from you. Feel free to actually counter the points made if you wish.

Oh and your last sentence, what part of the High Court and Supreme Courts rulings are you disputing exactly? As what she was trying to do in the context of Article 50 was deemed to go against our Parliamentary democracy, ergo she was wrong, ergo your continued justification of it is wrong. She lost in Court - twice.

You seem to believe that the government 'lost' in court, when the reality is that a point of law regarding the way parliament and the government operates was clarified. This clarification now exists for all PM's to come and will affect governments of whatever hue. It's not a win/lose, it just sets the process straight.......

 

[Joey66]

This would be correct, if only for the fact that the EU and the ESM are two completely separate organisations.



Are you unable to read? The very first thing I stated is that "I am in no way saying that we shouldn't leave the EU. Despite the fact that I am an avid remainder, I accept that a small majority of the people that voted in June voted for us to leave it and therefore it must happen."

This is completely separate issue to the result of the EU referendum. A democratic motion was not put forward in regards to our membership of the ESM - in fact it was a key manifesto pledge a year prior of our acting government.

The single market when in the EU is a perk of free trade ala with the other binary three freedoms one being free movement - Yes I agree with you the single market can be accessed by other countries without being members that's what we will try to negotiate!
you can not be in the EU and gain free access to the EU single market without negotiations eg USA, Canada, China etc

 

[Joey66]

You've argued against me, and others who have voted 'Leave' al the way in this thread, so no surprise there.

I've made you cringe? Really? Pathetic. I simply feel sorry for you, and others like you, who continue to rail against the vote and the ramifications of it in this thread.

There are some, like Wayne, who advance reasoned points in support of their views. There are others, like you, who just want to [Poor language removed] off 'Leavers' at every turn. As I said, pathetic!

And by the way, an 'Order in Council' is part of the overall Governmental process. It is not undermining any Parliamentary democracy. Get it right...

Here we go its getting nasty by number 25 yet again!
can he please read the rules of this new thread by the moderator at the top please?