7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

In 1973, 67.23% of those who voted, including myself, voted to stay in what was then the EEC. 

 

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Misled? yes. 

 

Misinformed? Yes.

 

Gullible? Maybe.

In 1973 most definitely.

 

There was no vote in 1973 ??

11 hours ago, nauseus said:

Very good CG. And very true. The most relevant reminder for the last xx,000 posts or so.

 

Millions from all classes and backgrounds have felt this way for a very long time. 

after which they will castigate the government for the poor state of the country and the high unemployment and/or the low paying poor quality jobs. The government is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

12 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

 

In 1973 most definitely.

 

There was no vote in 1973 ??

which is why they are gullible, they thought there was.

On 2/28/2018 at 5:01 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

Good article, and it makes the same point(s) that I have been making for a while.

 

The referendum was twenty months ago and the government seems not a whole lot more prepared for the consequences than they were then. Brexit is a huge, fiendishly complex process of untangling ties that have evolved over forty years or so, and the likelihood of them being severed in a reasonable manner within two years was always nonsense.

 

There is an obvious solution. The UK is simply not prepared for Brexit at this moment, so it should swallow its pride, admit that, and put off the whole idea for a generation. If there is still a desire on the part of her citizens to leave the EU in... twenty years(?), then there can be another referendum held, but this time with the proper preparation.

 

Continuing down this path will cause more harm that good, despite the results of the Referendum. Common sense desperately needs to beak out.

 

Brexit'd be done and dusted by now if the remainers of all parties hadn't started their treacherous activities. 

16 hours ago, tebee said:

I've always held the belief  that if people have to resort to ad hominem insults it's because they are losing the argument, so I assume I've won. 

I once read an article showing the intelligent use of insults in the readers column of very old newspapers. One old victorian gentleman also despaired, in a letter to the 'Times' :- " They have all died and the witty use of invective has died with them, I don't have one warm personal enemy left''

2 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Brexit'd be done and dusted by now if the remainers of all parties hadn't started their treacherous activities. 

What is treacherous about using the democratic process to try and avert a decision that they feel would be disastrous for the country, you should stop reading the Daily Express if you can't laugh at it.  

8 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Brexit'd be done and dusted by now if the remainers of all parties hadn't started their treacherous activities. 

So what exactly have we done ? Other than point out that the Brexit that was promised isn't a Brexit that is deliverable, I can't really see we have had the power to be effective at stopping it.

 

Reality on the other hand, is a much stronger opponent.  

8 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

What is treacherous about using the democratic process to try and avert a decision that they feel would be disastrous for the country, you should stop reading the Daily Express if you can't laugh at it.  

The referendum was the democratic process, it amazes me that you still cannot understand that; and you are the only poster on here that has openly admitted to reading the Daily Express, oh, and the Mirror

9 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

The referendum was the democratic process, it amazes me that you still cannot understand that; and you are the only poster on here that has openly admitted to reading the Daily Express, oh, and the Mirror

The referendum may have been a democratic process, but democracy did not finish on that day ! 

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

The referendum was the democratic process, it amazes me that you still cannot understand that;

It is simply staggering that people do not understand the Democratic process that has went on throughout this whole Brexit process.

 

1. A promise to hold a Referendum entered into Party Election Manifesto

 

2. The EU Referendum Act 2015.

 

3. The actual Referendum in 2016.

 

4. MP's vote overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50 in January 2017.

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

The referendum was the democratic process, it amazes me that you still cannot understand that; and you are the only poster on here that has openly admitted to reading the Daily Express, oh, and the Mirror

In the end it is a democratically elected parliament that has to make the decisions, it's what they are paid for. The voice from the street can be listened to but not necessarily adhered to (it often isn't, NHS funding, police numbers, housing, social care etc.). One should read the full spectrum of opinion presented by the press, even the gutter press which is responsible for much of the political opinion of the public in any country, only then can one begin to understand the aspirations of the Brexiteers. 

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

The referendum may have been a democratic process, but democracy did not finish on that day ! 

Correct.

 

Democracy was upheld and continued in January 2017, when MP's voted by nearly 4 - 1 to trigger Article 50.

1 minute ago, The Renegade said:

It is simply staggering that people do not understand the Democratic process that has went on throughout this whole Brexit process.

 

1. A promise to hold a Referendum entered into Party Election Manifesto

 

2. The EU Referendum Act 2015.

 

3. The actual Referendum in 2016.

 

4. MP's vote overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50 in January 2017.

Which is why parliament, like the the country, is divided I suppose.

4 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

It is simply staggering that people do not understand the Democratic process that has went on throughout this whole Brexit process.

 

1. A promise to hold a Referendum entered into Party Election Manifesto

 

2. The EU Referendum Act 2015.

 

3. The actual Referendum in 2016.

 

4. MP's vote overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50 in January 2017.

And it's still my democratic right to oppose any policy I do not agree with.

3 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Correct.

 

Democracy was upheld and continued in January 2017, when MP's voted by nearly 4 - 1 to trigger Article 50.

So where is the problem ? May must have it easy, parliament and the country are behind her......or not?

Just now, tebee said:

And it's still my democratic right to oppose any policy I do not agree with.

There is a vast difference between opposing a policy ( Brexit is no longer policy ) and trying to overturn a Democratic decision that has been voted into Law.

 

Something that certain remainers are either, oblivious to, incapable of understanding, or are so far up their own backsides that they do not care.

10 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

In the end it is a democratically elected parliament that has to make the decisions, it's what they are paid for. The voice from the street can be listened to but not necessarily adhered to (it often isn't, NHS funding, police numbers, housing, social care etc.). One should read the full spectrum of opinion presented by the press, even the gutter press which is responsible for much of the political opinion of the public in any country, only then can one begin to understand the aspirations of the Brexiteers. 

Sorry, I forgot that you only support the democratic processes when it produces the result that you want; when it does not, you want another democratic process to negate the democracy that you purported to support in the first place. How remiss of me, but I guess that's the kind of attitude you develop from reading the Express and Mirror

1 minute ago, The Renegade said:

There is a vast difference between opposing a policy ( Brexit is no longer policy ) and trying to overturn a Democratic decision that has been voted into Law.

 

Something that certain remainers are either, oblivious to, incapable of understanding, or are so far up their own backsides that they do not care.

The death sentence was also once law.

Just now, soalbundy said:

The death sentence was also once law.

And your point?

1 minute ago, The Renegade said:

There is a vast difference between opposing a policy ( Brexit is no longer policy ) and trying to overturn a Democratic decision that has been voted into Law.

 

Something that certain remainers are either, oblivious to, incapable of understanding, or are so far up their own backsides that they do not care.

Oh no there's not - Death by hanging was a valid English law for many years - the last executioner live near me - you are saying I could not oppose that if I didn't believe in capital punishment ?

 

Quote

Correct.

 

Democracy was upheld and continued in January 2017, when MP's voted by nearly 4 - 1 to trigger Article 50.

 

4 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

So where is the problem ? May must have it easy, parliament and the country are behind her......or not?

 

Are you trolling, trying to bait me or just like making comments that take stupidity to a whole new level ? 

 

You already answered yourself in post 9196

 

11 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Which is why parliament, like the the country, is divided I suppose.

 

 

2 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The death sentence was also once law.

Great minds think alike ! ?

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Sorry, I forgot that you only support the democratic processes when it produces the result that you want; when it does not, you want another democratic process to negate the democracy that you purported to support in the first place. How remiss of me, but I guess that's the kind of attitude you develop from reading the Express and Mirror

Almost. Change the last line to

 

Quote

That is the kind of attitude you develop when you are a committed Europhile. Vote, vote and if need be, vote again until you get the result that we want.

 

Merkel is on the brink - she is faced with a choice of either loosing face, or loosing the support of the 46 Bavarian MP’s, which would mean loosing her majority in the Bundestag

 

**** Angela Merkel’s three-party coalition is at risk of collapse in the next 48 hours after her Bavarian allies refused to back down over threats to impose border controls on asylum seekers.

 

Neither side in the stand-off between the German chancellor and her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, were in a mood to compromise as an opinion poll for the broadcaster ARD indicated that 62 per cent of Germans backed his tougher approach.

 

Mr Seehofer, head of the Christian Social Union, a conservative party which operates only in the southern state of Bavaria, is threatening to use his powers as national interior minister to issue an order on Monday that some migrants must be rejected at the border.

Mrs Merkel views this as against EU law and German commentators believe that she would have to sack him if he were to defy her; this would cause the CSU to walk out from the government.

 

Without the 46 Bavarian MPs Mrs Merkel would lose her majority in the Bundestag and be at risk of defeat in a confidence vote that would end her tenure of almost 13 years as chancellor. Most observers believe that she will not fight another election, especially given the rise in anti-immigration views in Germany after her decision to admit more than 1.2 million migrants since 2015 ****

2 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Sorry, I forgot that you only support the democratic processes when it produces the result that you want; when it does not, you want another democratic process to negate the democracy that you purported to support in the first place. How remiss of me, but I guess that's the kind of attitude you develop from reading the Express and Mirror

There are some opinions in Bloomberg and the Telegraph who would agree with me, one thing now that all the press agrees on, even the American Huffington Post, Brexit has become a mess, it's a mess because there isn't a sufficient majority to carry it through, if there was it would be done and clear by now, Industry and the world of finance would have certainty but they don't.

9 minutes ago, vogie said:

And your point?

you know my point, public and political forces fought the law and had it changed because it was found to be wrong.

13 minutes ago, tebee said:

Oh no there's not - Death by hanging was a valid English law for many years - the last executioner live near me - you are saying I could not oppose that if I didn't believe in capital punishment ?

 

Great example, even though it is clutching straws and off topic.

 

But Capital punishment was used in the UK for over 700 years before it was abolished in the mid 60's.

 

So come back around the year 2700 and start a rejoin the EU campaign.

8 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

you know my point, public and political forces fought the law and had it changed because it was found to be wrong.

Why was it wrong, because you say so. Most people are still in favour of the death penalty for murder.

15 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Neither side in the stand-off between the German chancellor and her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, were in a mood to compromise as an opinion poll for the broadcaster ARD indicated that 62 per cent of Germans backed his tougher approach.

There is only going to be one winner in this, and it is not going to be Merkel.

15 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

 

 

Are you trolling, trying to bait me or just like making comments that take stupidity to a whole new level ? 

 

You already answered yourself in post 9196

 

 

 

but if parliament, as they did, voted for art. 50, 4 to 1, why is there a problem now, even the cabinet is divided, 2nd thoughts perhaps? Admit it, the whole poorly thought out process is a mess, the EU is preparing to extend the Brexit negotiations, this is going a treat isn't it.