UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[My Thai Life]

5 minutes ago, tebee said:

40% 1 brexit no deal

5%   2 brexit deal (good or not good)

25% 3 art. 50 action and Brexit called off, UK remains in EU as before

30% 4 prolongation of the art 50 negotiating phase

I'd go for

 

< 20%

> 40%

0%

40%

 

ish!

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

You keep on saying this, and others keep on saying the opposite. I'll let you and your adversaries punch that one out.

 

I am not an expert on British Parliamentary history or the history of referenda in the UK. And I suspect you are not either. Do you know of any precedent for a 2nd referendum prior to the enactment of a 1st referendum? If so, please let us know.

 

There's ample scope for litigation just in the two points above, never mind the rest of the brexit smorgasbord should it come to a 2nd referendum. Which it won't.

 

 

There has only ever been 3 so not much room for  precedents - mind you referendum 3 is reversing referendum 1, but rather a long time after the enactment of a 1st referendum

[My Thai Life]

1 minute ago, tebee said:

There has only ever been 3 so not much room for  precedents

Precisely, and no precedent for a 2nd referendum prior to the enacting of the 1st, or within such a short period of time.

 

Anyone who thinks this could be done without major legal challenges is living in an unreal world in my opinion. And of course I'm happy for others not to share my opinion.

 

This is a hypothetical debate anyway, as there will not be second referendum.

[Chomper Higgot]

It is becoming increasingly clear (undeniable) that there is no Brexit option that will not cause substantial damage to the British economy.

 

This is not because the government are failing to provide a Brexit that is good for Britain’s economy, it’s because Brexit is by its nature a threat to the British economy.

 

The hardline Brexiteers in government understand people don’t vote to lose their jobs, services or become worse off and so will understandably  fight not to have a second referrendum.

 

My personal preference is for the Labour Party to acknowledge ‘Brexit’ is a Tory problem and for Labour to platform ‘Remain’.

 

Then have an election when Theresa May is toppled.

 

 

 

[My Thai Life]

People have in the main focused on the negative economic impacts of leaving. These are comparatively easy to assess. People often use the analogy of a divorce. Well we all know about the spouse we are splitting from, but we don't know about our future spouse(s). 

 

There has been little analysis of the positive effects of leaving because they're completely unquantifiable until the post-leave relationships, and our economic policies are clear.

 

Corbyn is a natural leaver because of his view of the relationship between the State and the economy. I don't think he would have the credibiity or the conviction necessary to make a good leader for an attempt to revive Remain.

 

Besides, wasn't there a recent General Election where both major parties positioned themselves for Leave?

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

People have in the main focused on the negative economic impacts of leaving. These are comparatively easy to assess. People often use the analogy of a divorce. Well we all know about the spouse we are splitting from, but we don't know about our future spouse(s). 

 

There has been little analysis of the positive effects of leaving because they're completely unquantifiable until the post-leave relationships, and our economic policies are clear.

 

Corbyn is a natural leaver because of his view of the relationship between the State and the economy. I don't think he would have the credibiity or the conviction necessary to make a good leader for an attempt to revive Remain.

 

Besides, wasn't there a recent General Election where both major parties positioned themselves for Leave?

“Besides, wasn't there a recent General Election where both major parties positioned themselves for Leave?”

 

There was, and coming up soon is a Labour National conference in which Labour policies will be debated and changed/set.

Labour need to put some polical space between themselves and the Tories and fill the political vacuum surrounding ‘Remain’.

 

May is for the chop!

[vogie]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Besides, wasn't there a recent General Election where both major parties positioned themselves for Leave?”

 

There was, and coming up soon is a Labour National conference in which Labour policies will be debated and changed/set.

Labour need to put some polical space between themselves and the Tories and fill the political vacuum surrounding ‘Remain’.

 

May is for the chop!

Labour needs to put some political space between them and Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnal.

[tebee]

The realities facing UK Gov are these:

- They have (rightly) destroyed no deal as a serious policy option.

- It will however happen if they do not:

a. make policy changes necessary to achieve a Withdrawal Agreement; or
b. request an A50 extension or revocation. 

The UK Gov has backed itself into a position where a. is extremely difficult for them politically. The Ultras will cry 'betrayal'. On the other hand, they are anyway, and will whatever UKGov does short of pushing over the table and spitting in Banier's face.

 

The same can be said of b. of course, even if it is just an extension. What is unknown is which they think would give them the best chance of survival at that point (which is now obvious is the primary, and potentially only consideration). 

As chequers has gone down like a fart in a lift with almost everyone, a deal will require a significant softening of it, and they have killed no deal as an option, b. is potentially in play.

 
All possible choices are now politically shit for UKGov, but only one comes with a cast-iron guarantee of total catastrophe - No Deal. Only one option gives them the chance to absolve themselves of having to make the decision, and that's to put the Q back to the people. 

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

The UK Gov has backed itself into a position where a. is extremely difficult for them politically.

No one can doubt the fact that the government is in a difficult position, but given that the main political parties are both split on this issue, actually fragmented might be a better term than "split", this is hardly surprising. It looks increasingly difficult to get a majority for any specific option in the House of Commons, despite its overwhelming backing for the leave position.

 

There's been a lot of criticism of May in all of this, only to be expected of course, but I've never seen any leader in such a difficult position in my life. Ivan Rogers says she would have been better off triggering A50 after some degree of consensus had been reached, but I honestly don't believe any meaningful level of consensus would have been reached, after all, it still hasn't.

 

Both remainers and hard leavers seem to think this kind of stalemate is playing into their hands. But the fact remains that the referendum produced a leave vote, and this simple fact isn't going to change.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by My Thai Life

[Stupooey]

3 hours ago, tebee said:

There has only ever been 3 so not much room for  precedents - mind you referendum 3 is reversing referendum 1, but rather a long time after the enactment of a 1st referendum

Two of these three produced decisive majorities - 67-33 in favour of staying in Europe (1975) and 68-32 against changing the voting system (2011) - so there was never any reason for a re-run. There have though been several regional referenda, and perhaps the closest parallel was the 1979 Scottish Assembly Referendum, which resulted in a vote of 52% to 48% in favour of establishing an Assembly. However, the relevant Act required (sensibly in my view) that 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour before it was enacted, and as this figure was not reached it was never implemented. It was not until 1997 that Scotland had another opportunity to vote on the issue, and this time the vote was 74-26 in favour of establishing a Scottish Parliament.

The other close parallel (although outside the UK) is the Irish referenda of 2008 and 2009 to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, which I have alluded to previously in the thread. In this case, it was initially rejected (53-47), but it was subsequently discovered that the main reason for voting against was that people did not understand what they were voting for. This shortcoming was addressed, and the following year the newly-educated population voted in favour by a margin of 67-33.

Incidentally, the concept of the referendum has long been considered contrary to the spirit of the British Constitution. In 1945, then Prime Minister Clement Atlee referred to it as a "device so alien to all our traditions...which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism", and even Margaret Thatcher described a referendum as "a device of dictators and demagogues". As you can tell I am no lover of referenda, but if it takes one to settle an indecisive one, then so be it.

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

What constitutional and legal nightmares would there be? The referendum was advisory. It had no legal force. As for a legal nightmare, what would that be? If the EU allows cancellation of the article 50 process, what is the problem. As for the 2nd referendum, just stipulate that if no proposal gets a majority, the top 2 get voted on. Seems simple enough. As for a political nightmare, that seems to be the way Brexit is currently heading. Keep in mind that parliament is going to have to approve whatever form of Brexit the government negotiates.

Edit: Actually, a more elegant proposal already exists. A vote for first and second choices. That way, the proposal that gets the least votes is eliminated and the second choices of voters who supported it are distributed accordingly.

Without getting into the 'it was only an advisory referendum' argument for the umpteenth time on these threads...., the main problem (as far as MPs are concerned) is that the vast majority of constituencies voted to leave!

 

Consequently, their MPs know they are likely to lose their seats if they try to stop brexit in an obvious way. 

 

Which (IMO) is why they knew they had no alternative other than to support the activation of article 50 - even though they, personally, had fought on the remain side!

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

 

We, the British public have spoken and made our intention perfectly clear in June 2016. The government was given a mandate. Simple. To harp on any other previously unforeseen aspect, as important or unprecedented as it may seem, should be avoided and eschewed. To hold another referendum now would simply act as a distraction and protract or even forgo the whole process, probably the prime reason for it's proposal in the first place. I think a large proportion of those who voted leave in the first place (myself included) knew that the aftermath wouldn't be pretty, and would be unprecedented. Point is, we voted to leave, via a totally democratic mechanism.

 

To ask the public to have a rethink about it all, to me, smacks of the Ireland / Portugal Lisbon treaty debacle - one of many fine examples of the EU's utter lack of democracy or least bit of care for its constituents' wishes.  

 

Instead, we should get out and get on with directing our own affairs by ourselves. With the right people in power we have a good chance of flourishing in the coming years with our independence renewed and intact. The road may well be rocky for a while, but in reality, nothing when compared to previous problems we, as a country, have faced down and overcome. The UK could also fulfill another, new role in the western world - to act as a beacon of hope for all nascent independence movements in the remaining EU nation states, of which there are many, some of which gaining a lot of political ground. If we were impeded from leaving or asked to vote again & the vote came back remain, be it legitimate or doctored, we would be done as a country and our story will have ended outside our own terms. That must not be the fate of the United Kingdom, we deserve better.

 

Far better to get out now without a crap deal that we don't even need and continue on with our proud island story - on our own terms, as we always have done! 

I find it thoroughly depressing that near half the voting population would rather we remain subjugated. They've surely lost all reverence of liberty and understanding of the importance of national and civic pride...or they have no understanding of their own nation's history, or, perhaps both. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[My Thai Life]

You've made a very good post Stupooey. But running the referendum a 2nd time because in your opinion the 1st wasn't well-organised enough is never going to happen.

 

So many of the remainers here position themselves as all-knowing when it comes to economic, political and constitutional issues.

 

The best time for them to have published their wisdom would have been before the referendum, when there was some chance of influencing the shape of the referendum and its outcome.

 

"Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted", or "crying over spilt milk" is not going to change anything, though it may help you all to let off a bit of steam.

 

 

 

[jak2002003]

2 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

 

I find it thoroughly depressing that near half the voting population would rather we remain subjugated. They've surely lost all reverence of liberty and understanding of the importance of national pride...or they have no understanding of their own nation's history, or, perhaps both. 

Working together is much better than working alone....

 

Liberty and national pride?  What a lot of nonsense.  Why should any country have national pride?  That is simply to control the population and an excuse for wars and hatred for other countries and people. What have the UK got to be proud of to such an extent to look down on Europe or other countries..... our Empire and the disgusting way we invaded and took over other countries to rob them of their wealth and resources perhaps?  

 

Have the vote again.  No problem.  What are you afraid of... perhaps that people now know some of the facts, people know they were lied to, and the stupid people that wasted their votes by protest votes or not voting will now act like adults and vote for what they really want.

 

If they have a re vote... and the result is leave again, then that will be the end of it.  If its stay, then it means people want to really stay.  Its just conformation of it and stops us making a huge mistake and stops the bickering and uncertainty.  

[dick dasterdly]

18 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

I don't think anyone, not even his rivals, would regard Corbyn as thick.

 

I'd say he is the only real statesman on offer! 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, having been out of the UK for so long, I know little about Corbyn.  Even so, I agree that he's unlikely to be 'thick as two short planks' (as stated by another poster) bearing in mind he managed to become elected the leader of the Labour party!

 

From the little I'd heard about Corbyn, I'd thought he was probably a fairly honest, genuine socialist - until he backed off from supporting leave, even though he'd previously been extremely critical of the eu and was 'seen' as a leaver.

 

I assume (very possibly incorrectly?) that this was because his fellow MPs were trying to oust him as leader, and so he preferred to stay in the background to reduce his chances of losing his position - rather than voice his genuine beliefs.

[rixalex]

The argument goes then that in spite of declaring prior to the referendum that the country would enact the will of the people based on simply which decision got the most votes, in or out; now, on reflection, it's been decided that having the most votes isn't enough, you have to win by a certain arbitary margin that we will decide upon.

What this is, in effect, is playing a game under under one set of rules, and then, when the game is finished, changing the rules because you don't like the result.

You play that trick once and then how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you propose having another game? What rule changes might you be making after that game, should the result not please you? Might just as well ditch the pretence of fair democratic values and get on with authoritarianism.



Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sir Dude]

This whole mess is of Brussels's own making as they should have tossed David Cameron a bone or two when he went to them and wanted co-operation on a few things to avoid this very situation...and what happened? The EU elites laughed and sneered at him as they said "Non."

 

The inflexibility and arrogance of the EU elite will be it's undoing, along with it's failure to confront Islam and immigration plus protect European culture and identity. Sooner or later people will start revolting...which some say has already started. The UK voted to leave...and having seen the true colours of the EU/Brussels collective in all it's indifferent and sneering glory, who in their right mind would want to be ruled by them. UK will be OK on it's own...freedom always has a price folks.

[rixalex]

Working together is much better than working alone....
 
Liberty and national pride?  What a lot of nonsense.  Why should any country have national pride?  That is simply to control the population and an excuse for wars and hatred for other countries and people. What have the UK got to be proud of to such an extent to look down on Europe or other countries..... our Empire and the disgusting way we invaded and took over other countries to rob them of their wealth and resources perhaps?  
 
Have the vote again.  No problem.  What are you afraid of... perhaps that people now know some of the facts, people know they were lied to, and the stupid people that wasted their votes by protest votes or not voting will now act like adults and vote for what they really want.
 
If they have a re vote... and the result is leave again, then that will be the end of it.  If its stay, then it means people want to really stay.  Its just conformation of it and stops us making a huge mistake and stops the bickering and uncertainty.  

Having seen the lengths that have been gone to to delay, interfere, thwart and overturn the referendum result of 2016, who would be stupid or naive enough to believe that a second vote would suddenly be respected if it didn't go "the right" way?

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

This whole mess is of Brussels's own making as they should have tossed David Cameron a bone or two when he went to them and wanted co-operation on a few things to avoid this very situation...and what happened? The EU elites laughed and sneered at him as they said "Non."

 

The inflexibility and arrogance of the EU elite will be it's undoing, along with it's failure to confront Islam and immigration plus protect European culture and identity. Sooner or later people will start revolting...which some say has already started. The UK voted to leave...and having seen the true colours of the EU/Brussels collective in all it's indifferent and sneering glory, who in their right mind would want to be ruled by them. UK will be OK on it's own...freedom always has a price folks.

Because democracy came to a shuddering halt on the morning of the referendum result?!

 

I have news for you.

 

It did not.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

This whole mess is of Brussels's own making as they should have tossed David Cameron a bone or two when he went to them and wanted co-operation on a few things to avoid this very situation...and what happened? The EU elites laughed and sneered at him as they said "Non."

 

The inflexibility and arrogance of the EU elite will be it's undoing, along with it's failure to confront Islam and immigration plus protect European culture and identity. Sooner or later people will start revolting...which some say has already started. The UK voted to leave...and having seen the true colours of the EU/Brussels collective in all it's indifferent and sneering glory, who in their right mind would want to be ruled by them. UK will be OK on it's own...freedom always has a price folks.

You squeezed your Islamophobia into this, like how?

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Having seen the lengths that have been gone to to delay, interfere, thwart and overturn the referendum result of 2016, who would be stupid or naive enough to believe that a second vote would suddenly be respected if it didn't go "the right" way?

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Two things seem to have escaped you.

 

1. The lies and utter incompetence of the British government.

 

2. There was never a Brexit plan, it’s an utter shambles because Brexit cannot be executed without severely damaging the British economy.

 

Neither of these things have anything to do with the EU, they are both a very British ‘cluster’.

[stephenterry]

15 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The argument goes then that in spite of declaring prior to the referendum that the country would enact the will of the people based on simply which decision got the most votes, in or out; now, on reflection, it's been decided that having the most votes isn't enough, you have to win by a certain arbitary margin that we will decide upon.

What this is, in effect, is playing a game under under one set of rules, and then, when the game is finished, changing the rules because you don't like the result.

You play that trick once and then how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you propose having another game? What rule changes might you be making after that game, should the result not please you? Might just as well ditch the pretence of fair democratic values and get on with authoritarianism.



Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I don't expect any government would want to admit that attempting to enact 'the will of the people' is not working as it was anticipated - albeit that would now be the honest declaration by TM.  So, she soldiers on in utter disarray trying to square the circle and negotiate a withdrawal deal within a few months that could benefit both the UK and the EU, and thus comply with the referendum vote and her declarations of a better Britain.

 

A more realistic course, IMO, is to halt the Art 50 withdrawal process while negotiations continue, and if that fails to reach an agreement that would benefit both the UK and EU, then parliament's meaningful vote on the publicized outcome should raise the question of whether the people should be asked if they still want to leave.

 

That's democracy.  

 

 

 

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

54 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Working together is much better than working alone....

 

Liberty and national pride?  What a lot of nonsense.  Why should any country have national pride?  That is simply to control the population and an excuse for wars and hatred for other countries and people. What have the UK got to be proud of to such an extent to look down on Europe or other countries..... our Empire and the disgusting way we invaded and took over other countries to rob them of their wealth and resources perhaps?  

 

Have the vote again.  No problem.  What are you afraid of... perhaps that people now know some of the facts, people know they were lied to, and the stupid people that wasted their votes by protest votes or not voting will now act like adults and vote for what they really want.

 

If they have a re vote... and the result is leave again, then that will be the end of it.  If its stay, then it means people want to really stay.  Its just conformation of it and stops us making a huge mistake and stops the bickering and uncertainty.  

You sound like a typical 'woke' remainer to me, white man's burden weighing heavy on your misinformed shoulders. Perhaps you're unaware (or too coy to be proud of) the many notable contributions the UK and the commonwealth have made to the modern world? Yet you sound ever so knowledgeable and apologetic for it's manifold transgressions. 

 

And if you think liberty, as in our ability to govern our own destiny free from all forms of control or manipulation, is not important then I think you've probably lead a very comfortable life without paying enough attention to recent history, how nice for you! Most of the last few generations in the UK have lived in ignorance of the effects that a true lack of liberty can induce (myself included) - ironically at the expense of others lives and liberties. However, more and more people are slowly waking up to the increasing impingement on our civil freedoms. To my mind, and to many others', the EU is at the heart of much of the over-regulation we experience and the restricting of our national and personal autonomy. It is easily quantified too. 

All this has nothing to do with looking down on other European nations, it's about understanding our place among them and working with them in trusted partnership, whilst simultaneously being free to fulfill our destiny - of our own making. If you think for one moment the EU has created some kind of Utopia where its constituent states all work together amicably and everyone benefits equally, the many nationalities all prospering uniformly whilst singing kum-bay-ar and embracing, then, well you have been living in a cave for the last 2 decades and more, be it real or cognitive. At the moment opposite is true and it's slowly becoming overwhelmingly obvious! One failed socio-political experiment after another. People have had enough and should be allowed to exercise their own democratic right to choose, as we have done.

 

'Working together is much better than working alone', agreed, but being forced together is never acceptable and who's to say we won't work together with our European neighbours once we leave the political federation that we never signed off on, anyway? No one. We could do so better, that's the point.  The nation states of Europe would do far better business and be far less vulnerable to division, the creation of mutual animosity and economic ruin if they returned to independently and democratically governed nations and whatever you may think about 'lies' we were fed, by both sides I'd like to remind you, the dye has been cast. We've made our decision and it's bigger, more important and more fundamental than economic opt-outs, currency fluctuations, customs unions, trade blocs or import/export tariffs. These things pale in comparison with our nation's sovereignty and total independence ... and that's the point here, that's (for myself and many others) what this is really all about! The economic aspects can be worked out in due course. 

 

Finally, when I say national or civic pride it seems you jump to the misconceived conclusion that these are pseudonyms for nationalism, fascism or the like. In reality, they are not the same thing at all. What is wrong with feeling pride for your friend or loved one when they have done something of worth? Achievement should be commended and prized. National and civic pride is simply an extension of this very everyday impulse. It doesn't need to be remotely exclusionary or xenophobic. Having pride in the worthy aspects of our history (which are numerous and all too obvious if you bother to learn about them) and pride in your surroundings / community is something that benefits all involved and is sorely lacking from our society today. Celebrating others' achievements, inspires achievement in ourselves. This concept rests on the fact that having taken pride in what deserves it, we also acknowledge the transgressions and evils of our own history too, which we do - and to a some extent, always have. If you disagree, you're welcome to, but I'd say you're misinformed and receiving that wisdom passed down from on high just a little too eagerly ? 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[My Thai Life]

30 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

The inflexibility and arrogance of the EU elite will be it's undoing, along with it's failure to confront Islam and immigration plus protect European culture and identity.

This is a very valid point, though one that is not usually raised because of political correctness. I really believe that Merkel's unilateral pronouncements about refugees was one of the things that tipped British voters into voting leave.

 

It didn't do her much good either did it: it weakened her position politically and very very nearly led to the downfall of her coalition. Now, if that had happened, the whole EU debate would have changed radically.

 

The remainers seem to think that the EU is a given. It is not, its continued existence depends upon one or two key players. Without them the EU is dead.

Edited August 21, 2018 by My Thai Life

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

People have in the main focused on the negative economic impacts of leaving. These are comparatively easy to assess. People often use the analogy of a divorce. Well we all know about the spouse we are splitting from, but we don't know about our future spouse(s). 

 

There has been little analysis of the positive effects of leaving because they're completely unquantifiable until the post-leave relationships, and our economic policies are clear.

 

Corbyn is a natural leaver because of his view of the relationship between the State and the economy. I don't think he would have the credibiity or the conviction necessary to make a good leader for an attempt to revive Remain.

 

Besides, wasn't there a recent General Election where both major parties positioned themselves for Leave?

No. The two main parties feared the wrath of the great unwashed. They FAILED in their responsibility to act in the BEST INTERESTS of their constituents and the country.

 

of course forecasts can be made; we don't live in the dark ages.

 

Corbyn is a useless Trotskyist w***er. He should be fired either metaphorically or literally. He, more than any other, is failing our country by continuing to breath. ⛏

Edited August 21, 2018 by Grouse

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

You sound like a typical 'woke' remainer to me, white man's burden weighing heavy on your misinformed shoulders. Perhaps you're unaware (or too coy to be proud of) the many notable contributions the UK and the commonwealth have made to the modern world? Yet you sound ever so knowledgeable and apologetic for it's manifold transgressions. 

 

And if you think liberty, as in our ability to govern our own destiny free from all forms of control or manipulation, is not important then I think you've probably lead a very comfortable life without paying enough attention to recent history, how nice for you! Most of the last few generations in the UK have lived in ignorance of the effects that a true lack of liberty can induce (myself included) - ironically at the expense of others lives and liberties. However, more and more people are slowly waking up to the increasing impingement on our civil freedoms. To my mind, and to many others', the EU is at the heart of much of the over-regulation we experience and the restricting of our national and personal autonomy. It is easily quantified too. 

All this has nothing to do with looking down on other European nations, it's about understanding our place among them and working with them in trusted partnership, whilst simultaneously being free to fulfill our destiny - of our own making. If you think for one moment the EU has created some kind of Utopia where its constituent states all work together amicably and everyone benefits equally, the many nationalities all prospering uniformly whilst singing kum-bay-ar and embracing, then, well you have been living in a cave for the last 2 decades and more, be it real or cognitive. At the moment opposite is true and it's slowly becoming overwhelmingly obvious! One failed socio-political experiment after another. People have had enough and should be allowed to exercise their own democratic right to choose, as we have done.

 

'Working together is much better than working alone', agreed, but being forced together is never acceptable and who's to say we won't work together with our European neighbours once we leave the political federation that we never signed off on, anyway? No one. We could do so better, that's the point.  The nation states of Europe would do far better business and be far less vulnerable to division, the creation of mutual animosity and economic ruin if they returned to independently and democratically governed nations and whatever you may think about 'lies' we were fed, by both sides I'd like to remind you, the dye has been cast. We've made our decision and it's bigger, more important and more fundamental than economic opt-outs, currency fluctuations, customs unions, trade blocs or import/export tariffs. These things pale in comparison with our nation's sovereignty and total independence ... and that's the point here, that's (for myself and many others) what this is really all about! The economic aspects can be worked out in due course. 

 

Finally, when I say national or civic pride it seems you jump to the misconceived conclusion that these are pseudonyms for nationalism, fascism or the like. In reality, they are not the same thing at all. What is wrong with feeling pride for your friend or loved one when they have done something of worth? Achievement should be commended and prized. National and civic pride is simply an extension of this very everyday impulse. It doesn't need to be remotely exclusionary or xenophobic. Having pride in the worthy aspects of our history (which are numerous and all too obvious if you bother to learn about them) and pride in your surroundings / community is something that benefits all involved and is sorely lacking from our society today. Celebrating others' achievements, inspires achievement in ourselves. This concept rests on the fact that having taken pride in what deserves it, we also acknowledge the transgressions and evils of our own history too, which we do - and to a some extent, always have. If you disagree, you're welcome to, but I'd say you're misinformed and receiving that wisdom passed down from on high just a little to eagerly ? 

 

 

National and civic pride are indeed very good things.

 

They are not the reserve of ‘Leave’ supporters and may be found in equal measure amongst ‘Remain’ supporters.

 

 

You lost me on your claim the EU is restricting personal liberties. You seem adamant on the point so perhaps you can give us a few examples.

[Grouse]

22 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

You sound like a typical 'woke' remainer to me, white man's burden weighing heavy on your misinformed shoulders. Perhaps you're unaware (or too coy to be proud of) the many notable contributions the UK and the commonwealth have made to the modern world? Yet you sound ever so knowledgeable and apologetic for it's manifold transgressions. 

 

And if you think liberty, as in our ability to govern our own destiny free from all forms of control or manipulation, is not important then I think you've probably lead a very comfortable life without paying enough attention to recent history, how nice for you! Most of the last few generations in the UK have lived in ignorance of the effects that a true lack of liberty can induce (myself included) - ironically at the expense of others lives and liberties. However, more and more people are slowly waking up to the increasing impingement on our civil freedoms. To my mind, and to many others', the EU is at the heart of much of the over-regulation we experience and the restricting of our national and personal autonomy. It is easily quantified too. 

All this has nothing to do with looking down on other European nations, it's about understanding our place among them and working with them in trusted partnership, whilst simultaneously being free to fulfill our destiny - of our own making. If you think for one moment the EU has created some kind of Utopia where its constituent states all work together amicably and everyone benefits equally, the many nationalities all prospering uniformly whilst singing kum-bay-ar and embracing, then, well you have been living in a cave for the last 2 decades and more, be it real or cognitive. At the moment opposite is true and it's slowly becoming overwhelmingly obvious! One failed socio-political experiment after another. People have had enough and should be allowed to exercise their own democratic right to choose, as we have done.

 

'Working together is much better than working alone', agreed, but being forced together is never acceptable and who's to say we won't work together with our European neighbours once we leave the political federation that we never signed off on, anyway? No one. We could do so better, that's the point.  The nation states of Europe would do far better business and be far less vulnerable to division, the creation of mutual animosity and economic ruin if they returned to independently and democratically governed nations and whatever you may think about 'lies' we were fed, by both sides I'd like to remind you, the dye has been cast. We've made our decision and it's bigger, more important and more fundamental than economic opt-outs, currency fluctuations, customs unions, trade blocs or import/export tariffs. These things pale in comparison with our nation's sovereignty and total independence ... and that's the point here, that's (for myself and many others) what this is really all about! The economic aspects can be worked out in due course. 

 

Finally, when I say national or civic pride it seems you jump to the misconceived conclusion that these are pseudonyms for nationalism, fascism or the like. In reality, they are not the same thing at all. What is wrong with feeling pride for your friend or loved one when they have done something of worth? Achievement should be commended and prized. National and civic pride is simply an extension of this very everyday impulse. It doesn't need to be remotely exclusionary or xenophobic. Having pride in the worthy aspects of our history (which are numerous and all too obvious if you bother to learn about them) and pride in your surroundings / community is something that benefits all involved and is sorely lacking from our society today. Celebrating others' achievements, inspires achievement in ourselves. This concept rests on the fact that having taken pride in what deserves it, we also acknowledge the transgressions and evils of our own history too, which we do - and to a some extent, always have. If you disagree, you're welcome to, but I'd say you're misinformed and receiving that wisdom passed down from on high just a little too eagerly ? 

 

 

Cantab? Genuinely? You don't sound like it to me. The history of our continent should guide you.

[My Thai Life]

20 minutes ago, Grouse said:

No. The two main parties feared the wrath of the great unwashed. They FAILED in their responsibility to act in the BEST INTERESTS of their constituents and the country.

 

of course forecasts can be made; we don't live in the dark ages.

> For whatever reason, the major parties backed leave at the election. (And for whatever reason, the electorate voted leave.)

 

> Of course forecasts can be made, but much easier to make forecasts based on current cash flows isn't it. And that's where all the copy and paste is coming from from the forum's leavers. 

 

> Forecasting for an entirely new economic model, or at least one that the UK hasn't followed for 50 years or so, ie a no deal scenario, is possibly more difficult than you might imagine, and would arguably hinder the ongoing "negotiations" anyway.

 

The outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion, so we're all going to have to live with the uncertainty for quite a bit longer. Well not all of us. Many of us are insulated from the outcome one way or the other.

Edited August 21, 2018 by My Thai Life

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, Grouse said:

No. The two main parties feared the wrath of the great unwashed. They FAILED in their responsibility to act in the BEST INTERESTS of their constituents and the country.

 

of course forecasts can be made; we don't live in the dark ages.

 

Corbyn is a useless Trotskyist w***er. He should be fired either metaphorically or literally. He, more than any other, is failing our country by continuing to breath. ⛏

That’s a curious post.

 

Having identifies failures of the political parties to address the ‘best interests of their constituents and the country’ you then spil your bile on Corbyn who has presented policies addressing the best interests of the many (not just the few)  and for the country.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Cantab? Genuinely? You don't sound like it to me. The history of our continent should guide you.

Born and bred. What makes you question that? The history of our continent should guide me into believing that being forcibly governed from an increasingly centralised hub of control is the best course of action? Having less say in our own affairs and less control from our age-old parliament is the right thing for us, as a nation? Fewer and fewer Italians, French, Germans, Spaniards, Hungarians, Poles and many many more would disagree. Homogenisation, centralised consolidation of power and demagoguery have been tried and tested, under a few different guises. The result has been invariably bad. Surely, the history of our continent shows us this more than anything else? Why would you want to repeat it?