Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Elections and Council Matters => Topic started by: CTCREP on October 20, 2019, 05:10:01 PM
-
As 52.3% of people who voted in Stockport voted to Remain within Europe, it would be interesting to know how our Parliamentary Representatives voted in Parliament, and are they representing their Constituents views.
-
There are several web sites that show how MPs voted on everything.
-
There are several web sites that show how MPs voted on everything.
Mr wragg voted out .and he voted with the prime minister yesterday ,
-
As 52.3% of people who voted in Stockport voted to Remain within Europe, it would be interesting to know how our Parliamentary Representatives voted in Parliament, and are they representing their Constituents views.
Of course you vote for an MP who you consider will best represent your views whilst also making informed decisions on your behalf. In a parliamentary democracy, your MP is elected to come to with their view on things and then act accordingly in the way they best fit.
Which is exactly why referendums don't work well in a parliamentary democracy... But equally parliament decided it was useless and devolved decision on EU membership to the people. So really any MP not reflecting the views of all of their constituents properly is - for my mind - doing it wrong. Any MP who wanted to implement a personal view, should never ever have voted for a referendum.
But this implies an element of common sense wholely absent from some of our elected representatives
-
Yes Wragg seems very keen to take our rights, citizenship and freedom of movement away.
-
Yes Wragg seems very keen to take our rights, citizenship and freedom of movement away.
or maybe keen to simply honour the result of a referendum in 2016?
-
it's true that the referendum reslt in 2016 showed a very small margin in favour of brexit. In the years since then, we've found that the leave campaign have acted illegally and outright lied to us, the electorate. All the promises they made have been proven to be false - we don't hold all the cards, this hasn't ben the easiest deal in history, they aren't queueing up to make deals with us
now, there are some very good reasons to consider leaving the EU. what we do need to ask ourselves is, "does the deal on the table accurately refelect all - or even ANY = of the promises and scenarios portrayed prior to the referendum? How does it improve thigs for the UK as a nation?"
I have yet to meet anyone who is prepared to stand up and answer the latter question in particular. I have yet to see a credible report which suggests anything other than a longterm negative impact on the UK economy and thus quality of life for the majority of the population, but when asked "what benefit does brexit offer us?" those who support it fall back on "but it's what we voted for".
no, even amongst those who did vote for brexit, only a tiny proportion voted for this.
tell me - how does it benefit us? I'll happilt sit down and discuss over a convivial beverage if you would prefer
-
tell me - how does it benefit us? I'll happilt sit down and discuss over a convivial beverage if you would prefer
An appealing invite, although I fear our politics might not align. For the record however, I didn't vote leave, but my dissapointment/frustration/anger with the current state of UK politics from Stockport Council to the current pantomine that is regularly performed in the House of Commons remains a continued source of disbelief.
-
As 52.3% of people who voted in Stockport voted to Remain within Europe, it would be interesting to know how our Parliamentary Representatives voted in Parliament, and are they representing their Constituents views.
Surely it would be more relevant on a Marple web site to look at the voting result for the Hazel Grove constituency.
http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/hazel-grove (http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/hazel-grove)
Hazel Grove voted 52.21% to leave the EU.
So our MP is representing the wishes of the electorate.
-
Surely it would be more relevant on a Marple web site to look at the voting result for the Hazel Grove constituency.
http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/hazel-grove (http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/hazel-grove)
Hazel Grove voted 52.21% to leave the EU.
So our MP is representing the wishes of the electorate.
Nothing wrong with that .
-
Surely it would be more relevant on a Marple web site to look at the voting result for the Hazel Grove constituency.
http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/hazel-grove (http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/hazel-grove)
Hazel Grove voted 52.21% to leave the EU.
So our MP is representing the wishes of the electorate.
If we have another vote hope to god we dont could be higher next time ,sick of it any way like children .
-
Yes Wragg seems very keen to take our rights, citizenship and freedom of movement away.
you wont say that if we have election and by some freak result LABOUR get in .
-
you wont say that if we have election and by some freak result LABOUR get in .
The Labour Party has never voted to take our citizenship ship away. Wragg has. The Labour party are not seeking to take our freedom of movement away. Wragg has voted to.
-
The Labour Party has never voted to take our citizenship ship away. Wragg has. The Labour party are not seeking to take our freedom of movement away. Wragg has voted to.
Is that all that matters to you .
-
Surely it would be more relevant on a Marple web site to look at the voting result for the Hazel Grove constituency.
http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/hazel-grove (http://democraticdashboard.com/constituency/hazel-grove)
Hazel Grove voted 52.21% to leave the EU.
So our MP is representing the wishes of the electorate.
He is representing the views of the electorate yes. In some ways. The big problem with Wragg is that - for quite some time - he was always very hard Brexit. Something that was NEVER on the cards in the referendum (if you look at the referendum it was all about how we'd get a great deal really easily - no one ever mentioned leaving without a deal. No. Not even Farage.) Notably Wragg's pivoted recently towards having a deal. Sure that's absolutely nothing to do with him worrying that he'll lose his seat next election.
-
The Labour Party has never voted to take our citizenship ship away. Wragg has. The Labour party are not seeking to take our freedom of movement away. Wragg has voted to.
He has voted in the only way that means I will vote for him at the next election, unless an even more committed opponent of the EU stands. Of course it may have the opposite effect on some people.
-
He has voted in the only way that means I will vote for him at the next election, unless an even more committed opponent of the EU stands. Of course it may have the opposite effect on some people.
me to .need to keep labour out .
-
He has voted in the only way that means I will vote for him at the next election, unless an even more committed opponent of the EU stands. Of course it may have the opposite effect on some people.
Don't worry. The Nigel Farage Fanclub have said they will be standing in every seat in the country. You can vote for them. Off you go.
Yeah, I know they're officially called the Brexit Party, but you can't actually join the Brexit Party. It's not possible. Just not. And you can't question the mighty Farage. That's against the rules of the Brexit Party. So I think Nigel Farage Fanclub is actually a more accurate name really.
-
Is that all that matters to you .
Largely YES
-
Don't worry. The Nigel Farage Fanclub have said they will be standing in every seat in the country. You can vote for them. Off you go.
Yeah, I know they're officially called the Brexit Party, but you can't actually join the Brexit Party. It's not possible. Just not. And you can't question the mighty Farage. That's against the rules of the Brexit Party. So I think Nigel Farage Fanclub is actually a more accurate name really.
Correct Andrew but then we all know NF set up The Brexit Party to continue to enhance his value on the speakers circuit. Once Brexit is killed off his value reduces for NF it's all about money making opportunities for NF.
-
He has voted in the only way that means I will vote for him at the next election, unless an even more committed opponent of the EU stands. Of course it may have the opposite effect on some people.
As someon who appears t be very much pro-brexit, can you please eaborate on the benefits it will bring us as a nation?
-
As someon who appears t be very much pro-brexit, can you please eaborate on the benefits it will bring us as a nation?
I would qualify that as tangible benefits. Ones we will actually notice. That will make a difference.
Otherwise you'll simply get told some meaningless waffle about being back in control or something!
-
Ah yes, good point.
To be honest, I don't expect a reply. I've never had one yet from anyone to whom I've posed the question.
-
I want the right to buy straight bananas. Much easier to fit in your lunchbox.
-
I want the right to buy straight bananas. Much easier to fit in your lunchbox.
Is that a euphemism for something illegal :D?
-
I want the right to buy straight bananas. Much easier to fit in your lunchbox.
That's fine because you have the right to buy a straight banana right now, and always have. All you have to do is find a retailer who stocks them.
-
I want the right to buy straight bananas. Much easier to fit in your lunchbox.
Suspect that this post is facetious, but just in case, the bendy banana myth is yet another of the stories invented or exxagerated by journalists - ooh look the former journalist Alexand Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (who incidentally has been sacked at least twice for lying) has a history of inventing utter tripe about the EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/10-best-euro-myths-from-custard-creams-to-condoms
-
As someon who appears t be very much pro-brexit, can you please eaborate on the benefits it will bring us as a nation?
It isn't simply the benefits it will bring to the nation, but also the benefits it will bring to Europe. Among many other things, we (and I mean all the nations of the EU), suffer from the appalling single market and the inability to favour ones own people and companies and to have our own standards. It threatens the identity of all member states. Free trade is one thing; enforcing common standards is quite another. The awful marmalade directive is an example of the nonsense we have (in this case, at UK insistence; enforcing our meaning of the word on other countries). I hope Brexit will be the first step in the dissolution of the EU and the start of the building of a new and better Europe based on the real principles which make Europe, Europe and not on the liberal and economic basis that the EU embodies. Personally, I think that if Brexit does not bring out the liberation of at least some and preferably all the nations of Europe, it will not have succeeded. I also think that if we do not go ahead with Brexit, Parliament will not only have let down the people of the UK, but the people of France, Germany, Poland and the rest.
The EU is taking Europe in the wrong direction entirely, and we owe it all of Europe to help put an end to it.
-
The EU is taking Europe in the wrong direction entirely, and we owe it all of Europe to help put an end to it.
Absolutely. I am old enough to remember clearly the UK joining the European Economic Community (EEC) and the reasons why. This was to enable the ease of free bi-lateral trading. So much so that I supported (a big mistake) the 1975 referendum form the current Labour government. Since then it has morphed into the European Union (EU). David Cameron tried, prior to the current referendum to ensure that the UK benefited more from our financial input and failed. To Europe we are the ultimate cash cow. You may join the club but you will never be allowed to leave.
-
It isn't simply the benefits it will bring to the nation, but also the benefits it will bring to Europe. Among many other things, we (and I mean all the nations of the EU), suffer from the appalling single market and the inability to favour ones own people and companies and to have our own standards. It threatens the identity of all member states. Free trade is one thing; enforcing common standards is quite another.
Yes, it's terrible to have common standards thus making it easier to trade with other nations, isn't it?
You see, you think the EU's bad and wrong for having common standards. But what do you think happens when you want to trade with the US? Or they want to trade with us? It's not a free for all. If you want to sell your product to the US, you have to abide by their rules. Rules that - incidentally - ban Kinder Eggs.
Global trade is all about standards of one form or other. And the thing is, with the US we get zero say in those standards. Nothing. Our opinion is meaningless because we're pretty small fry. We have no choice but to comply. You comply with the US rules or you don't trade.
Here's the thing with the single market. We get a say. We help shape and define those common standards. And because everyone in the EU shares the same rule book, we can just sell our products abroad. No paper work. Nothing. It's some of the easiest trade in the world. And we have a say in what those rules are.
The awful marmalade directive is an example of the nonsense we have (in this case, at UK insistence; enforcing our meaning of the word on other countries).
the marmalade directive. This is a new one on me I must confess.
But I did some research and it turns out EU law means something can only be called marmalade if it has at least 20% citrus fruit! And that the rules basically support the British definition of marmalade! It gets worse. Thanks to a BRITISH VICTORY in the EU, it's the UK that stopped other countries calling non-citrus based products marmalade! At least one German MEP HATED the marmalade directive that he wanted it changed! And probably many people do - and the reason it is what it is, is because of the UK!
It's all there in this Daily Telegraph article for anyone not clear on this maddening directive! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/10/german-mep-demands-brexit-ends-hated-eu-marmalade-law/
Condate - I think you better find some better reasons to hate the EU than that one. Cos that one is our fault.
I hope Brexit will be the first step in the dissolution of the EU and the start of the building of a new and better Europe based on the real principles which make Europe, Europe and not on the liberal and economic basis that the EU embodies. Personally, I think that if Brexit does not bring out the liberation of at least some and preferably all the nations of Europe, it will not have succeeded. I also think that if we do not go ahead with Brexit, Parliament will not only have let down the people of the UK, but the people of France, Germany, Poland and the rest.
The EU is taking Europe in the wrong direction entirely, and we owe it all of Europe to help put an end to it.
So basically you have no tangible benefits for leaving other than that we can continue to sell marmalade just as we always have, . Just irrational hatred caused by your own misunderstanding. You hate something so much that you want it completely destroyed. That leaving is not enough for you. That the democratic views of people in 27 other countries are not enough for you. You demand destruction. Because you hate. Because you hate the EU because you don't understand the background to the marmalade directives.
I think it sums up the argument really.
-
Suspect that this post is facetious . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/10-best-euro-myths-from-custard-creams-to-condoms
Yes it was facetious - and thanks for the link to many other examples of Euro myths. Also I hadn't intended any double entendre (sorry if that's on the Rees Mogg list of banned vocabulary...)
-
I think it sums up the argument really.
I think it sums up your opinion Andrew Bowden. Just as we all might have different ideas as to what constitutes proper marmalade (Tiptree Orange for me), likewise, we're all entitled to an opinion. None are necessarily right or wrong and therein lies the problem; we appear as a nation to have lost the ability to respect other peoples opinions.... In my opinion! :)
-
One of the problem with opinions is that they don't need to be backed up by facts. Which is a problem.
When Mr Gove suggested that people have "had enough of experts" he inadvertently hit the nail on the head. It would appear that as a country we now prefer to be lied to, by people who have uncontested history of lying, because they at least tell us what we want to hear and not the uncomfortable and generally extremely complex truth / fact.
Its easier for Mrs Miggins to read a load of cobblers on the internet about the Lisbon Treaty and how it's going to apparently claim the life of every first born son in Marple, then for her to actually do any balanced research. Can't be bothered to read the Withdrawal Agreement? Never mind, there will be a sound-bite along in a minute to do the rounds of ones own particular echo-chamber.
Its almost better to be ignorant and let those who actually have looked into the subject (i.e 'the experts') make the decisions, than glory in having an 'opinion' based on nothing more than lies, propaganda and party politics.
-
I think it sums up your opinion Andrew Bowden. Just as we all might have different ideas as to what constitutes proper marmalade (Tiptree Orange for me), likewise, we're all entitled to an opinion. None are necessarily right or wrong and therein lies the problem; we appear as a nation to have lost the ability to respect other peoples opinions.... In my opinion! :)
I am not sure what the EU definition of marmalade has to do with accepting differing opinion. Opinion is what the rules are and should be. Fact is why the rules were created the way they are.
But equally I have no problem with pointing out when someone's opinion may be swayed by misinformation, or factual inaccuracies.
If you stand in front of me and tell me the Asda logo is blue because you read it in a book, expect me to tell you you are wrong.
-
I am not sure what the EU definition of marmalade has to do with accepting differing opinion.
The EU definition of marmalade is in itself an opinion
-
The EU definition of marmalade is in itself an opinion
Yes it is. And it is a fact that anything that meets the definition is classed as marmalade.
And here's my opinion. Wanting to leave the EU because it has a definition of marmalade that happens to match what we expect in the UK to be marmalade, is a pretty strange reason to leave. In my opinion.
-
Yes it is. And it is a fact that anything that meets the definition is classed as marmalade.
And here's my opinion. Wanting to leave the EU because it has a definition of marmalade that happens to match what we expect in the UK to be marmalade, is a pretty strange reason to leave. In my opinion.
Just sounds like the three year Brexit debate in the commons ,Have you tried Asda Marmalade .
-
Just sounds like the three year Brexit debate in the commons ,Have you tried Asda Marmalade .
Last time I had marmalade was at a b&b last year. The owners mum makes it for them. It had recently won a very prestigious marmalade award by all accounts.
It was extremely good.
-
@Condate , you still haven't elaborated on the benefits. You've pointed out many things that you don't like such as common standards that make trading simpler and easier, and the "inability to favour ones own people", but you haven;t said "it will make XXXX cheaper" or "it wil make YYYY" easier
I ask for your views on benfits as to date, all forecasts from reputable sources have spoken solely of the negative impact - including a LONGTERM drop in the economy of 4 to 6 percent. Bear in mind that the "great recession" of the period spanning 2008 - 2010 is widely regarded as one of the worst depressions recorded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008), yet saw an impact on the UK economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom) of roughly HALF that size. The publicity from the government advising us to "get ready for brexit" is only there to tell us how much extra work we'll have to do and how much more complicated it will be to do things which involves goods or people leaving or entering our island. Given this, can YOU tell us what we'll be able to enjoy after Brexit? What's the first thing that you hope the UK government will do after Brexit, that they ar currently prevented from doing by The EU?
just picking up on a couple of points you mentioned specifically - common standards, as mentioned, are good thing, but perhaps you could explicitly say which rules prevent us from awarding contracts to "our own people"? Bear in mind that our government may operate to different standards to other european goivernments, so "we" may choose to interpret "best value" for instance as "cheapest in monetary terms" rather than "a price which will reflect the value of good purchased while still contributing to our economy"
-
@Condate , you still haven't elaborated on the benefits. You've pointed out many things that you don't like such as common standards that make trading simpler and easier, and the "inability to favour ones own people", but you haven;t said "it will make XXXX cheaper" or "it wil make YYYY" easier
I ask for your views on benfits as to date, all forecasts from reputable sources have spoken solely of the negative impact - including a LONGTERM drop in the economy of 4 to 6 percent. Bear in mind that the "great recession" of the period spanning 2008 - 2010 is widely regarded as one of the worst depressions recorded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008), yet saw an impact on the UK economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom) of roughly HALF that size. The publicity from the government advising us to "get ready for brexit" is only there to tell us how much extra work we'll have to do and how much more complicated it will be to do things which involves goods or people leaving or entering our island. Given this, can YOU tell us what we'll be able to enjoy after Brexit? What's the first thing that you hope the UK government will do after Brexit, that they ar currently prevented from doing by The EU?
just picking up on a couple of points you mentioned specifically - common standards, as mentioned, are good thing, but perhaps you could explicitly say which rules prevent us from awarding contracts to "our own people"? Bear in mind that our government may operate to different standards to other european goivernments, so "we" may choose to interpret "best value" for instance as "cheapest in monetary terms" rather than "a price which will reflect the value of good purchased while still contributing to our economy"
Mr wragg voted for early general election .
-
The Nigel Farage Fanclub have said they will be standing in every seat in the country. You can vote for them.
Looks like we're heading for an election before Christmas. And yes, with any luck we'll have a Brexit Party candidate in Hazel Grove, and Condate and other like-minded leavers can vote for her/ him, and hopefully split the Leave vote so that Labour or (more likely) the Lib Dems win Hazel Grove. Bring it on!
But what is really fascinating and imponderable is this: if the result of the election is that there is no overall majority for any one party (as happened in 2010 and 2017) what happens then? I can just about imagine the Tories and the Brexit Party joining forces (though God help us if they do). But can anyone see the Lib Dems and/ or SNP joining a coalition led by Prime Minister Corbyn? Me neither!
-
Yes, it is funny that the Lib Dems always have an issue with the Labour leader when looking at coalitions and yet seem comfortable with the Tory leadership!
The election won't resolve anything, it is just an opportunity to pee more money up the wall which could and should be spent on reversing austerity - the root cause of the brexit vote.
Looks like we're heading for an election before Christmas. And yes, with any luck we'll have a Brexit Party candidate in Hazel Grove, and Condate and other like-minded leavers can vote for her/ him, and hopefully split the Leave vote so that Labour or (more likely) the Lib Dems win Hazel Grove. Bring it on!
But what is really fascinating and imponderable is this: if the result of the election is that there is no overall majority for any one party (as happened in 2010 and 2017) what happens then? I can just about imagine the Tories and the Brexit Party joining forces (though God help us if they do). But can anyone see the Lib Dems and/ or SNP joining a coalition led by Prime Minister Corbyn? Me neither!
-
Yes, it is funny that the Lib Dems always have an issue with the Labour leader when looking at coalitions and yet seem comfortable with the Tory leadership!
The election won't resolve anything, it is just an opportunity to pee more money up the wall which could and should be spent on reversing austerity - the root cause of the brexit vote.
Austerity; the root cause of the Brexit vote, an opinion presumably?
-
Austerity; the root cause of the Brexit vote, an opinion presumably?
Has there been anything but in this thread?
-
An interesting recent development has been the announcement of a tactical voting 'remain alliance' between the Lib Dems, Greens and Plaid Cymru. The three parties have agreed that in the 60 target seats, two of the parties will give the other party a free run in an attempt to consolidate the 'remain' vote.
One of the target seats is Hazel Grove, where the Greens (and needless to say, Plaid Cymru!) will not run at this election. However, looking at the voting figures from the last general election in 2017, that is not going to make a big difference!
General election 2017: Hazel Grove
Conservative William Wragg 20,047 45.4%
Liberal Democrat Lisa Smart 14,533 32.9%
Labour Navendu Mishra 9,036 20.5%
Green Robbie Lee 516 1.2%
Majority 5,514 12.5%
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Grove_(UK_Parliament_constituency))
So the 1.2% of the vote that the Green candidate got last time will make absolutely no difference.
But the figures are interesting for other reasons. In particular, if you look on that Wikipedia page at the general election results since 2010, you can see how the Labour vote has strengthened considerably over the past nine years, from 12% in 2010 to 20% in 2017.
As we know, our MP is a member of the European Research Group of extreme Brexiters. See https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/revealed-these-70-tory-mps-support-the-hard-brexit-group.
If the Tories get an outright majority in the forthcoming election, and especially if the party still contains extremist ERG members, the prospect of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit at the end of next year is a very real one. So we know what to do............
-
If the Tories get an outright majority in the forthcoming election, and especially if the party still contains extremist ERG members, the prospect of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit at the end of next year is a very real one. So we know what to do............
Scaremongering, in my opinion. Use of words like "catastrophic" and maths based on two "ifs" adding up to "Very real" ::)
-
It's amazing how much of the "Scaremongering" of "project fear" has been dismissed, right up until it's become "exactly what people voted for"
Don't forget that until Andrew Stunnell stepped down, our constituency was strongly lib-dem. There's no saying that this swing from Lib dem to Conservative won't be reversed - but then it isn't guaranteed to happen either
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Stunell#Member_of_Parliament,_1997%E2%80%932015
BTW I note that neither @Condate nor anyone else has actually stepped up to provide examples of the positive differences that Brexit will bring. Any suggestions?
-
Don't forget that until Andrew Stunnell stepped down, our constituency was strongly lib-dem.
It's interesting looking at the history of Hazel Grove constituency.
It was created in 1974.
Feb 1974-Oct 1974 it was Liberal.
October 1974 it went to the Conservatives - MP Tom Arnold.
1997 it went Lib Dem to Andrew Stunell.
2015 it went back to the Conservatives.
1997 and 2015 stand out to me every time because they're two points when there was a seismic change in the politics in this country. In 1997 the Conservatives lost power and lost a lot of seats. In 2015 the Lib Dems were essentially punished for going into coalition. (Also of note in both cases, the sitting MP stood down as well.)
Could it be that it will take another seismic shock to change MP? Or will the next shock not affect us?
Here's another interesting fact by the way. In 2015 Wragg won with the lowest share of the vote this constituency has ever had, getting only 41.4% of the votes. Given the Lib Dems and Labour both increased their vote share in 2017, it seems likely the only reason he won was because Ukip didn't stand. If the Brexit Party do as they say they will, and stand someone here, it seems likely he's got a serious battle on his hands.
What happens this December is an interesting question.
-
BTW I note that neither @Condate nor anyone else has actually stepped up to provide examples of the positive differences that Brexit will bring. Any suggestions?
The list would take days to type out and most example are in fact well known to all members of the forum.
The ability to favour UK companies and indeed only accept bids from UK companies is very important. Obviously, this would not be required and EU countries could exclude UK companies as well (I could never understand why and French company for example could want to accept bids for a contract from other than French companies). We will no longer have to treat all EU companies etc as equal to our own and vice versa.
The ability to decide for ourselves whether to adopt standards from the EU (or elsewhere for that matter), or have our own. Obviously, some standards make sense as the UK's long membership of the Union internationale des chemins de fer and the Union postale universelle show, but neither the EU, nor the UK, should try to impose its standards on each other (and as I've mentioned, the UK has its fair share of blame for imposing its standards on other member states).
The ability to allow labelling of products in Imperial units only is very important. For me, getting rid of compulsory use of the hated metric system (born of the French Revolution and the ideas which inspired it), would be reason enough to leave the EU.
The impetus Brexit will give to the people of the remaining EU states in their efforts to leave the EU is also important.
For me, Brexit is not really about the UK; it is about Europe and its future. It is because I am pro-European that I am anti-EU. I think Brexit will have failed if the EU still exists in twenty years time. The EU is a failed experiment. I have no objection to a Europe of closely cooperating nations. There is undoubtedly a unity to Europe, but the EU has missed the point. I think all forum members would be well advised to read the book by Hilaire Belloc (a former Liberal MP by the way) "Europe and the Faith". He points out the true nature of Europe and it what its unity consists.
-
You know we started adopting metric before we joined the EU? And that many many people have never learned imperial. I am 42. I learned Metric at school. People before me learned Metric. Everyone after has learned Metric. Our adoption of metric has nothing at all to do with the EU. Our adoption of metric will not change if we leave .
People who only think in imperial are only ever going to be decreasing in number.
Sorry.
(Actually I am not. Imperial measurements are a ludicrous system. No wonder most of the world has shunned them.)
-
Scaremongering, in my opinion. Use of words like "catastrophic" and maths based on two "ifs" adding up to "Very real" ::)
I take jimblob's point about the 'two ifs'. Actually, if 'if no 1' happens (i.e. there is an overall Tory majority) then 'if no 2' is bound to follow, because the Tories can only win an outright majority if most of their sitting MPs are re-elected, and that includes the ERG crowd.. And with opinion polls at their current levels don't rule it out!
But my use of the word 'catastrophe' is certainly not 'scaremongering', neither is it our old friend 'project fear'. It is the overwhelming consensus of reputable economic forecasts, including from the governments's own Office for Budget Responsibility: Brexit will undoubtedly have a damaging impact on the economy, and a no-deal Brexit will have an even more damaging impact.
This is a good and relatively straightforward summary, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14421
It models four scenarios, in which the best economic outcome is produced by remaining in the EU, followed by leaving with a deal, followed by continued long-term uncertainty, followed, lastly, by leaving without a deal. The three-year projections shown there suggest a 5% (£100 billion) increase in GDP if we remain, compared, at the other extreme, with a 1% (£20 billion) increase if we leave without a deal.
And yet the leaflet which dropped through our letterbox today claimed that if we 'get Brexit done', that means £33.9 billion more for the NHS, 20,000 more police officers, and 'more money for every school' (I'm amused by the coyness of the last one - just 'more money' ;-)
So if Brexit enables the government to splash that amount of cash around, think how much they could splash if we don't leave! ::)
-
(Actually I am not. Imperial measurements are a ludicrous system. No wonder most of the world has shunned them.)
But but but, those industrial power houses of Liberia and Myanmars still use Imperial, and they could be the only places we can get a trade deal with......
(http://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_18300_countries_using_the_metric_or_the_imperial_system_n.jpg)
-
The list would take days to type out and most example are in fact well known to all members of the forum.
The ability to favour UK companies and indeed only accept bids from UK companies is very important. Obviously, this would not be required and EU countries could exclude UK companies as well (I could never understand why and French company for example could want to accept bids for a contract from other than French companies). We will no longer have to treat all EU companies etc as equal to our own and vice versa.
And yet no other country in the EU has this "problem". As with most "problems caused by the EU" it's actually the British government's interpretation that is the issue, not the EU.
The ability to decide for ourselves whether to adopt standards from the EU (or elsewhere for that matter), or have our own. Obviously, some standards make sense as the UK's long membership of the Union internationale des chemins de fer and the Union postale universelle show, but neither the EU, nor the UK, should try to impose its standards on each other (and as I've mentioned, the UK has its fair share of blame for imposing its standards on other member states).
Except that at the moment we get to decide the standards, in partnership with the rest of the EU. Should we leave we will be forced to accept the standards imposed on us by our biggest trading partner (whomever that ends up being). We won't get to decide anything.
The ability to allow labelling of products in Imperial units only is very important. For me, getting rid of compulsory use of the hated metric system (born of the French Revolution and the ideas which inspired it), would be reason enough to leave the EU.
::)
This is up there with blue passports.......
The impetus Brexit will give to the people of the remaining EU states in their efforts to leave the EU is also important.
The EU is a failed experiment.
Yes, the longest period of peace and prosperity that Europe has ever known. What a failure. ???
-
‘The hated metric system’. Behave yourself.
-
Yes, the longest period of peace and prosperity that Europe has ever known. What a failure. ???
This can’t be said too often, especially on this day (Remembrance Sunday) of all days. Those of us who were born in the years following WW2 have lived out our entire lives in the longest continuous period of peace between the countries of Western Europe for 2,000 years. We must never ever take that for granted.
-
This can’t be said too often, especially on this day (Remembrance Sunday) of all days. Those of us who were born in the years following WW2 have lived out our entire lives in the longest continuous period of peace between the countries of Western Europe for 2,000 years. We must never ever take that for granted.
Yes. We have a lot to thank NATO for. It's just a shame that so few countries honour their commitment to it.
-
I wonder why we don't have the blue passport brigade clamoring for us to leave the un-elected, un-accountable, undemocratic NATO.
Spending millions of our Euros/Pounds/Zlotys or whatever on schemes we in Marple have never been asked to endorse.
-
it is interesting that Brexit supporters cannot explain or describe how their lives or those of their children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU. They always come up with strange things that really are nonsense - marmalade !!!! bananas !!!! - incredible.
For thousands of years we have been a sovereign nation making our own laws. We still do. Anyone who thinks different is sadly deluded.
Since joining the EU or EEC as it was, we have agreed to a set of common standards with 27 friendly, neighbouring countries to enable us to trade together, to move freely in these countries and to live in peace - I think that's pretty damn good!!!
If Brexit can improve on this please explain how ?
-
Apologies
earlier posts refer to 'membership of the Union internationale des chemins de fer and the Union postale universelle'
The quote from a previous post seems appropriate:
Nothing is infinite, except the universe and stupid people, and sometimes, I doubt the universe."
-
I wonder why we don't have the blue passport brigade clamoring for us to leave the un-elected, un-accountable, undemocratic NATO.
Perhaps because NATO is not a political alliance, but a military one. Its raison d'etre died with the Soviet Union, but vested interests kept it going.
This can’t be said too often, especially on this day (Remembrance Sunday) of all days. Those of us who were born in the years following WW2 have lived out our entire lives in the longest continuous period of peace between the countries of Western Europe for 2,000 years. We must never ever take that for granted.
Explain who is taking it for granted, and how?
For thousands of years we have been a sovereign nation making our own laws. We still do. Anyone who thinks different is sadly deluded.
Since joining the EU or EEC as it was, we have agreed to a set of common standards with 27 friendly, neighbouring countries to enable us to trade together, to move freely in these countries and to live in peace - I think that's pretty damn good!!!
It is stretching things even to imply that the formation of the EU in and of itself was the sole reason that "Western Europe" hasn't been at war with itself. There were many other co-international initiatives that were equally desirous of "peace and prosperity". EFTA, for example (before it was outmuscled by the EU).
The mountain of EU Directives and Regulations you call "a set of common standards" has technically been enacted by UK Parliament, but there's nothing sovereign about it. They are transposed into our law whether we "agree" or not.
I don't know about marmalade or bananas, but EU membership destroyed our Fisheries industry as well as irreparably harming fish stocks in the North Sea which was an ecological disaster. The meat industry was harmed by the senseless destruction of abattoirs as a direct result of EU interference, which many feel led to the foot and mouth epidemic in 2001 because cattle had to be transported further than before, and on a larger scale. When the epidemic did strike, EU legislation forbade all the effective preventative measures we could have taken based on lessons of the previous 1960s outbreak, which led to the senseless pre-emptive culling. An absolute unmitigated disaster. Farming... once we were the most efficient industry in Europe (before membership of course), before we cut our hands off by agreeing to the nonsensical CAP.
I can provide many more examples if you wish. The whole Brexit / Remain argument has never been waged on the terms it should have been.
-
The comment I'd like to make would just cause hassle for the moderators.
I'm amazed at what gets people wound up - have things really gone so wrong for people that they are scared of millimetres?
#MarpleMetricResistance .
The ability to allow labelling of products in Imperial units only is very important. For me, getting rid of compulsory use of the hated metric system (born of the French Revolution and the ideas which inspired it), would be reason enough to leave the EU.
-
The comment I'd like to make would just cause hassle for the moderators.
I'm amazed at what gets people wound up - have things really gone so wrong for people that they are scared of millimetres?
#MarpleMetricResistance .
Here's a fun fact. Imperial measurements in this country are officially defined in metric and have been since 1985. For example, all imperial lengths are defined in terms of the Yard. But the yard itself is defined as 0.9144 metres.
It was also this act that made metric the default in retail, and that stopped the use of things being sold in pints apart from beer, cider and re-usable milk bottles.
Absolutely nothing to do with the EU. It was domestic decision taken at the time.
-
Absolutely nothing to do with the EU. It was domestic decision taken at the time.
Just for the state of clarity, whilst the EEC had measurement directives from the early days, we were already heading to metric when we joined. The first EEC directive on measurements was completely inline with existing UK government policy of moving to metric. We'd made that decision.
When the pace of metrication began to slow down in the late 1970s, the UK asked - and got - several exemptions that it wanted on the process. Which is why we still buy beer in pints, and have road signs in yards and miles.
If we hadn't been in the process of converting to metric, it's quite possible that the EEC's measurement directives would have been worded differently. Because we had say in these things...
-
Explain who is taking it for granted, and how?
'It' in Melancholy's question refers to peace. I had written 'those of us who were born in the years following WW2 have lived out our entire lives in the longest continuous period of peace between the countries of Western Europe for 2,000 years. We must never ever take that for granted.'
To answer Melancholy's question, I think we are all in danger of taking peace for granted. The vast majority of the UK population have never known anything different, so it's hardly surprising.
But our parents and grandparents lived though the most terrible times. Mine never talked about it much - maybe blotting it out is a good way to cope. But you've only got to read about the Nazi genocide in the 1930s and early 40s, or of the astonishing loss of life in WW1, to realise how powerful and heartfelt was the motivation of the EU's founding fathers. Nearly 20,000 young British soldiers (some barely out of their teens) were killed on just one day, 1 July 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Never again!
But as one of those founding fathers (Winston Churchill) famously said, 'those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it'. There are wars going on all over the world, right now - in Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan, of course, but also in several Africa countries. And we in Europe could so easily find ourselves sliding into war again. So we should never take peace for granted.
The European values of freedom and democracy, which are under threat from elsewhere in the world and even, to a lesser extent, from parts of the EU itself, are so important, and breaking up the EU would be a real threat to our capacity to uphold them.
I would urge anyone who still wants Brexit to reflect on one question: why do Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin want Brexit?
-
Melancholyflower makes several points that are basically wrong.
However, what Melancholyflower hasn't done is answer the most pertinent point raised:
Insert Quote
it is interesting that Brexit supporters cannot explain or describe how their lives or those of their children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU
Can you explain how we are going to be better off after Brexit - only facts please, not opinions or hopes.
-
Melancholyflower makes several points that are basically wrong.
stusmith, then you'll be able to show - factually and without opinion - how and why my points are wrong?
Can you explain how we are going to be better off after Brexit - only facts please, not opinions or hopes.
Facts are impossible without knowing what kind of Brexit we will get. How will Manchester United perform after they sign several as yet unknown players in the January window?
Sadly we're still at "opinion" stage because of the incompetence of our political class and the way they have behaved. That's basically because they didn't want it.
The difference could be between a complete severance - whereby you have 100% control over the borders and 100% control over any trade agreements you make, and 100% control over any laws that you make (an actual nation state in the true sense), or a lower vassal hanging on like a limpet, still stuck in the single market and customs union (which seems to be what Labour wants) and basically still following EU rules.
Dave - I'm glad you're saying that everyone is in danger of taking peace for granted, and not just people who voted for Brexit, for example! Yes, there were strong impulses against war from many people after 1945, but not just from Jean Monnet and the Benelux "founding fathers". *No-one* wanted more war.
Who is threatening freedom and democracy in Europe? Why is the EU the only seeming bastion against this threat? Cannot countries negotiate together without an overarching bureaucracy?
Why is the EU any better at freedom and democracy than anywhere else? Given its track record of ignoring "negative" referenda results against the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties for example (until they curiously came up with results that it approved), given the bullying of Greece so it wouldn't leave the Eurozone, given the Council pushes decisions through QMV even if some countries don't agree with them, and given the EU Directives that flood into this country, how is that democratic?
-
How will Manchester United perform after they sign several as yet unknown players in the January window?
That's a completely fatuous comparison. Brexit is more akin to Manchester United deciding they don't want to play in the Premier League any more and withdrawing, only to start trying to negotiate a series of matches against individual clubs
The difference could be between a complete severance - whereby you have 100% control over the borders and 100% control over any trade agreements you make, and 100% control over any laws that you make (an actual nation state in the true sense), or a lower vassal hanging on like a limpet, still stuck in the single market and customs union (which seems to be what Labour wants) and basically still following EU rules.
We have control over our borders already. Show me how we don't? Remember, freedom of movement doesn't mean freedom to stay - under current EU lesgislation, we are permitted to require people to return to theor ountry of origin after a certain perdion of time if they are not empliyed and contributing to society. The fact that the UK government have chosen not to implement these rules (unlike, say, Austria), is a problem with OUR government, not the EU.
With WHOM are we going to form trade agreements ? Our biggest trading partner is the EU, they're right on our doorstep and we already have a zero tax agreement with them, that we're now hoping to rip up in the vain hope that as a single player we MIGHT be able to get a better deal than a major bloc - oh and don't forget that given we will have to continue trading with the EU when brexit does happen (there's no way we could afford to stop trade), we will have to continue abiding by the rules and standards they set, but we will have no longer have any say. It beggars belief, truly.
Who is threatening freedom and democracy in Europe?
In essence, Russia. You may have see it mentioned in the news if you've been paying attention. If you haven't seen that, I wonder what else you've missed
Why is the EU the only seeming bastion against this threat?
It isn't the only bastion, as you well know, but don't say as it does't serve the point you're trying to make.
Cannot countries negotiate together without an overarching bureaucracy?
Of course they can, but as the saying goes - together we stand, divided we fall. It's much better to stand united and support each other as part of a single group than it is to try to meet separately for each minor point
You still haven't pointed out the actual concrete benefits, but have - again - highlighted some negative points
-
That's a completely fatuous comparison. Brexit is more akin to Manchester United deciding they don't want to play in the Premier League any more and withdrawing, only to start trying to negotiate a series of matches against individual clubs
We have control over our borders already. Show me how we don't? Remember, freedom of movement doesn't mean freedom to stay - under current EU lesgislation, we are permitted to require people to return to theor ountry of origin after a certain perdion of time if they are not empliyed and contributing to society. The fact that the UK government have chosen not to implement these rules (unlike, say, Austria), is a problem with OUR government, not the EU.
With WHOM are we going to form trade agreements ? Our biggest trading partner is the EU, they're right on our doorstep and we already have a zero tax agreement with them, that we're now hoping to rip up in the vain hope that as a single player we MIGHT be able to get a better deal than a major bloc - oh and don't forget that given we will have to continue trading with the EU when brexit does happen (there's no way we could afford to stop trade), we will have to continue abiding by the rules and standards they set, but we will have no longer have any say. It beggars belief, truly.
In essence, Russia. You may have see it mentioned in the news if you've been paying attention. If you haven't seen that, I wonder what else you've missed
It isn't the only bastion, as you well know, but don't say as it does't serve the point you're trying to make.
Of course they can, but as the saying goes - together we stand, divided we fall. It's much better to stand united and support each other as part of a single group than it is to try to meet separately for each minor point
You still haven't pointed out the actual concrete benefits, but have - again - highlighted some negative points
Out Out Out we can set our own rules then
-
as usual all we get is the mantra and no actual thought. what rules do you want to set? why can you not set them now? what happens when the rules "we" set mean we can;t trade with our current markets?
-
The difference could be between a complete severance - whereby you have 100% control over the borders and 100% control over any trade agreements you make, and 100% control over any laws that you make (an actual nation state in the true sense), or a lower vassal hanging on like a limpet, still stuck in the single market and customs union (which seems to be what Labour wants) and basically still following EU rules.
OK Melancholy, fair enough. Those are two possible variants of Brexit - if you like, the hardest and the softest, and of course there are many others in between. So using each of those two scenarios as the basis for your answers, can you deal with stusmith's question: please describe how your life or those of your children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU.
Why is the EU any better at freedom and democracy than anywhere else?
Because we invented it, and spread it all round the world. Democracy, from the Greek 'demos' - the people. The people elect the government. It's not perfect, but as Churchill said, ' democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest'.
Sadly we're still at "opinion" stage because of the incompetence of our political class and the way they have behaved. That's basically because they didn't want it.
Agreed that they have been extraordinarily incompetent. But that's not because they didn't want Brexit. On the contrary, they eventually got around to voting for it on 21 October! But Prime Minister Johnson then pulled the bill and called a General Election.
The problem isn't that MPs don't want Brexit. The problem is that they can't agree on the sort of Brexit they want, and they will not compromise. That's why we are where we are.
-
That's a completely fatuous comparison. Brexit is more akin to Manchester United deciding they don't want to play in the Premier League any more and withdrawing, only to start trying to negotiate a series of matches against individual clubs
I was using it to point out how futile it is to even begin to demonstrate how something can progress when nothing has yet been agreed or decided.
How is it fatuous?
In essence, Russia. You may have see it mentioned in the news if you've been paying attention. If you haven't seen that, I wonder what else you've missed
I was asking a question because I was genuinely flummoxed by the suggestion. Now you've mentioned Russia, I've seen a lot of rhetoric about the so-called Russian menace and a "new Cold War" but no actual evidence. Show me some, and specifically how it threatens freedom and democracy.
It isn't the only bastion, as you well know, but don't say as it does't serve the point you're trying to make.
Which point do you think I *was* trying to make?
So using each of those two scenarios as the basis for your answers, can you deal with stusmith's question: please describe how your life or those of your children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU.
Hard Brexit:
- the ability to make one's own laws, 100%, fully driven by, and accountable to, Parliament - which is fully elected and accountable to the UK electorate.
- a completely independent and fully accountable judicial system which isn't subserviant to a supranational court
- the return of our fishing stocks and the ability to manage them as we wish
- the ability to trade with whomever we wish whenever we wish
Those are just some of the areas which would, in my view, have a direct positive impact on me and my descendants.
Soft Brexit - well, again, it depends how soft, and how committal. I'll have to give you my preferred soft brexit.
- With Labour's set-up (i.e we'd be half-out instead of half-in as we are now), nothing much would change, we'd probably pay a little less but have no influence over the rules that came down from on high (though what influence we have had in the past is debatable)
- The Norway option (membership of the EEA) would be a reasonable compromise to enable a gradual progress to full independence.
I will qualify all the above by saying:
- I have no confidence in our current political class to deliver this, or develop it
- Our whole governmental and political system has become so closely intertwined with the EU it will make exit more difficult than it could or should have been (certainly in 1975 when the first referendum was held, or even in 1992 when a second referendum *should* have been held)
- Therefore, I favour a long-term gradual movement away
And now, I would invite stusmith again to please to show how my earlier points were wrong.
-
Hard Brexit:
- the ability to make one's own laws, 100%, fully driven by, and accountable to, Parliament - which is fully elected and accountable to the UK electorate.
Well, we will as long as we're not making a law that impacts upon any trade or business we'd like to do with the EU or the US, in which case we'll have to do what they tell us to do or we won't be able to trade with them. So kinda like it is now, except without the ability to influence the EU laws that we'll have to follow anyway, or the ability to tell the US where to stick it as part of the EU trading block.
- a completely independent and fully accountable judicial system which isn't subserviant to a supranational court
Good point, I long for the day when my employer can mercilessly exploit me, and my government can abuse my human rights with impunity.
- the return of our fishing stocks and the ability to manage them as we wish
I'm pretty sure that it was the British government that unnecessarily sold out the fishing industry, but even if it wasn't, it is such an insignificant part of the British economy (0.1% of our GDP) that it's just not even worth talking about. Which is probably why all the little Englanders won't shut up about it!
- the ability to trade with whomever we wish whenever we wish
We can do that now.
What you mean is the ability to *try* and negotiate a better trade deal than the one that the EU has negotiated (where it has one). Obviously there will be individual cases where for a specific sector, we can negotiate a better deal in a specific market, but the reality is that we'll just have to take the s***y end of the stick in every market that matters, as we'll no longer have the bulk bargaining power of the EU behind us.
-
MF - the recent points made by various contributors about trade are valid - if we want to continue trading with our largest trading partner we will need to meet the standards they require - no ifs no buts. We should then get a trade deal and going forward but we'll always have to adhere to rules that we will have little or no influence over - that is not a plus.
You refer to making our own laws and not being subservient to a 'supranational court' - trade disputes between countries are settled by an international court or the WTO - so in this area we remain 'subservient'.
as for an independent and fully accountable judicial system - what do you think we have now? Perhaps you can explain how the judicial system is neither independent or accountable. Our system is not perfect but it is certainly independent and accountable.
I also fail to understand what you mean when you write that we can trade with who we wish - we do that now !!! The EU has over 100 trade deals giving UK importers and exporters preference to markets all over the World, These vanish when we leave - you cannot think that's a good thing - or can you?
as for your 'wrong' comments earlier in this thread - as an example I refer to those re foot and mouth. Both outbreaks you refer to had nothing to do with the EU or EEC.
Finally, If you don't know what's on the other side of a closed door but it might not be as good as what you have now - which is pretty damn good - why would you open the door and go through.
Basically, you have no idea if any kind of Brexit will work. What we do know is that what we currently have works for UK Trade and the vast majority of the population. Remember, the majority of the electorate did not vote to leave !!
-
Melancholy, stusmith asked you to describe how your life or those of your children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU. You replied:
- the ability to make one's own laws, 100%, fully driven by, and accountable to, Parliament - which is fully elected and accountable to the UK electorate.
- a completely independent and fully accountable judicial system which isn't subserviant to a supranational court
- the return of our fishing stocks and the ability to manage them as we wish
- the ability to trade with whomever we wish whenever we wish
stusmith and marplexile have dealt with much of that already. Each member state of the EU has its own laws, and those form the vast majority of law in each country. EU law applies only to trans-national issues - treaties, elections to the European Parliament, directives and regulations relating to the Single Market (Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievement). Since 1999, when records became available for the first time in an accessible format, the UK has voted “no” to legislation on 57 occasions. It has voted “yes” 2,474 times and abstained from voting 70 times. This translates into the UK opposing 2% of legislation, abstaining on 3% of it, and supporting 95% of it.
Above all, leaving these aspects of the EU behind will in no way make your life or your children's better, melancholy, Can you seriously imagine your son or daughter saying on 1 February next year, if the Tories have managed to wrench us out of the EU, 'oh mummy, mummy, I'm so happy that we now have a completely independent and fully accountable judicial system which isn't subserviant to a supranational court ' ;)
What it will do, however, is make us poorer. Cautious forecasts estimate a 2.5% hit on GDP - that takes about £50 billion out of the economy.
-
What it will do, however, is make us poorer. Cautious forecasts estimate a 2.5% hit on GDP - that takes about £50 billion out of the economy.
If the Tories are still in power, I wonder which section of the population will feel the -2.5% hit the most?
-
If the Tories are still in power, I wonder which section of the population will feel the -2.5% hit the most?
And if labour are in power .
-
And if labour are in power .
If Labour are in power, their plan is to negotiate a new deal (involving membership of the single market and customs union) and then hold a confirmatory vote to let the people decide what they want. Despite everyone ragging on Corbyn about what he PERSONALLY wants, the Labour plan is quite clear. Pretty much all the major parties now have a clear policy on what they'll do. What happens if there's no overall majority is when it becomes unclear again.
-
If Labour are in power, their plan is to negotiate a new deal (involving membership of the single market and customs union) and then hold a confirmatory vote to let the people decide what they want. Despite everyone ragging on Corbyn about what he PERSONALLY wants, the Labour plan is quite clear. Pretty much all the major parties now have a clear policy on what they'll do. What happens if there's no overall majority is when it becomes unclear again.
The people have allready voted to come out of europe .if labour get in and my god i hope not inflation will rocket masive unemployment strikes will be back on .you dont remember the last time do you or are you in another world .of milk and honey .
-
The people have allready voted to come out of europe .
We did indeed, albeit by a tiny majority. But we can’t agree on what sort of Brexit we want, and neither can our MPs. That’s the problem, and that’s why the Labour plan for a legally binding referendum on a detailed and deliverable deal is probably the most practical way out of this mess.
-
The 2016 was a badly organised advisory referendum that should just be ignored.
-
I really struggle with this working class tory schtick / daily mail playbook.
We bailed out the banks during a global recession, we've endured years of austerity that has decimated services, schools, lives and hope in may areas. Most of my working life has seen me pay considerable tax (high rate tax payer) but all the institutions we should hold dear broken down and sold off.
We're being told by millionaires and billionaires that we can't afford a decent health service, public transport comparable to other European countries and a progressive tax system where the richest will pay more. compared to what we have got and what has happened over the past decade i'm more than happy to chance a labour government.
From what I saw yesterday and in the leaders debates the day before Labour has a plan, has a vision and some hope - the other parties don't. You have 3 shades of Tory - the remain wing (libDem) the one nation group in the middle and the Far Right nutters (Brexit Party)
So, as i've said before, Brexit is the conclusion of anger and depression not caused by the EU but by the failed neo-liberal model. As such i'll be voting Labour on the 12th, will accept that i'll contribute a bit more but in return will live in a country that is generally more happy, has well funded schools, good clean transport and isn't the US' b**ch.
The people have allready voted to come out of europe .if labour get in and my god i hope not inflation will rocket masive unemployment strikes will be back on .you dont remember the last time do you or are you in another world .of milk and honey .
-
I have a great deal of sympathy for what Andy writes, but we have to face up to the reality that voting Labour in Hazel Grove means re-electing William Wragg. Sorry, but that's how it is. :(
-
I have a great deal of sympathy for what Andy writes, but we have to face up to the reality that voting Labour in Hazel Grove means re-electing William Wragg. Sorry, but that's how it is. :(
When you look at all the historical general elections, Labour have been very consistent in their position in the rankings. Since it was created in 1974, Labour has come third in Hazel Grove Consistency in every single election. It's true that last election they got their highest share of the vote here ever. But to go from a 20% share, leapfrogging from third to first place doesn't seem massively likely.
Like it or not, there's realistically only two candidates who will win the next election here.
-
I voted LibDem in 2010....
I have a great deal of sympathy for what Andy writes, but we have to face up to the reality that voting Labour in Hazel Grove means re-electing William Wragg. Sorry, but that's how it is. :(
-
I voted LibDem in 2010....
...... and that was the last time we elected an MP who wasn’t a Tory. So do it again Andy 😊
-
I have a great deal of sympathy for what Andy writes, but we have to face up to the reality that voting Labour in Hazel Grove means re-electing William Wragg. Sorry, but that's how it is. :(
Its very hard to argue with that analysis.
Don't you just love our 'democratic' westminster voting system.
-
I've been musing over what Andrew & Dave have written...
With regards to the labour vote in the constituency, it looks to have been fairly stable over past few elections. There was as leap in 2017 but it doesn’t appear to be at the cost of the LibDems who polled higher in 17 than in 15.
Although the labour vote has crept up it does look like remain Tories will be the LibDem saviour and not Labour voters. This may explain all the rhetoric locally and nationally. Currently it would require practically every Labour voter to trust the Liberals, which just isn’t going to happen. I'd have opted for a slightly different tact but they probably had the leaflets printed up a while back to dodge the spending limits.
Whilst it won’t make a considerable difference I think that the ‘remain alliance’ Green votes may head to labour opposed to the Lib following trigger happy Swinson’s pledge to nuke the world. (which will certainly have an impact on climate change!!)
I do know a number of people who are planning to hold their nose and ‘vote tactically’, I wish them well. As I said, I voted LibDem to keep the Tories out and ended up with a decade of austerity!
At present I'm not minded to help Lisa Smart help Jo Swinson to become the next Nick Clegg!
(Before people challenge my conscience I am putting in a significant effort in other constituencies)
-
I understand all that Andy but I think we also have to consider our local needs in Hazel Grove and apart from the Swinson/Corbyn debate we need a decent MP in our constituency and Wragg is just about the worst MP I can ever remember having. He has a poor reputation on case work and replying to letters and emails.
So I think one of the key issue leaving aside the national debate is just getting rid of Wragg so that we locally have a much better MP.
-
With regards to the labour vote in the constituency, it looks to have been fairly stable over past few elections.
Not quite Andy. here are the figures since 2010.
2010: Lib Dem 49%, Conservative 34%, Labour 13%
2015: Conservative 41%, Lib Dem 26%, Labour 18%
2017: Conservative 45%, Lib Dem 33% Labour 21%
The biggest surge in the Labour vote was in 2015, followed by a smaller increase in 2017. And the 2015 surge must surely have come at least in part from former Lib Dem voters, with the Lib Dem vote collapsing from 49% in 2010 to 26% in 2015.
I take wheels's point about the shortcomings of our incumbent MP, and I'm sorry to say that at the last election I was less than impressed with Ms Smart. But for me the overwhelming priority is to stop the sheer stupidity of Brexit, and here in Hazel Grove that means voting for the candidate who is best placed to beat William Wragg. It's a case of vote Wilson, get Wragg, I'm afraid.
-
Not quite Andy. here are the figures since 2010.
2010: Lib Dem 49%, Conservative 34%, Labour 13%
2015: Conservative 41%, Lib Dem 26%, Labour 18%
2017: Conservative 45%, Lib Dem 33% Labour 21%
The biggest surge in the Labour vote was in 2015, followed by a smaller increase in 2017. And the 2015 surge must surely have come at least in part from former Lib Dem voters, with the Lib Dem vote collapsing from 49% in 2010 to 26% in 2015.
I take wheels's point about the shortcomings of our incumbent MP, and I'm sorry to say that at the last election I was less than impressed with Ms Smart. But for me the overwhelming priority is to stop the sheer stupidity of Brexit, and here in Hazel Grove that means voting for the candidate who is best placed to beat William Wragg. It's a case of vote Wilson, get Wragg, I'm afraid.
That Labour surge came, in part, from Michael Taylor, a Marple local who ACTIVELY campaigned, unlike the other Labour candidates who knew they had no chance in Hazel Grove. Previous candidates just paid lip-service to the constituency, whilst working for other proposed MPs, or sitting MPs in other localities where Labour had more chance.
-
So let’s hope Mr Wilson takes the same sensible approach!
-
Not quite Andy. here are the figures since 2010.
I take wheels's point about the shortcomings of our incumbent MP, and I'm sorry to say that at the last election I was less than impressed with Ms Smart. But for me the overwhelming priority is to stop the sheer stupidity of Brexit, and here in Hazel Grove that means voting for the candidate who is best placed to beat William Wragg. It's a case of vote Wilson, get Wragg, I'm afraid.
I understand your comments and feeling about Ms Smart but I think we have to accept that since the last election she has stuck with it, got herself elected to Stockport Council and has become involved in a wide range of local organisations.
-
The 2016 was a badly organised advisory referendum that should just be ignored.
Don't often agree with you, Wheels, but you are right on the spot this time.
-
Oh Henrietta that's left me with such a warm glow.
-
I understand your comments and feeling about Ms Smart but I think we have to accept that since the last election she has stuck with it, got herself elected to Stockport Council and has become involved in a wide range of local organisations.
I am impressed with what she has done over the last year or two. However voting for her risks putting Corbyn in power, and keeping him out of power is my number one aim when deciding how to vote. This sums up my reasons for not liking Corbyn, see https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-26/labour-party-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-chief-rabbi-labour-attack-dont-have-to-believe-corbyn-antisemitic-to-see-attack-harmful-robert-peston/
I just don’t believe that anyone who is still at the top of the Labour party has the skills to carry out half of what is in their manifesto. Government is about choosing what to do, Labour has proven with the manifesto (and promises since) that they are not willing to make chooses about where to put the nations limited resources.
As to the LibDems, I would also find it hard to vote for them due to them saying any man who says he thinks he is a woman should be using the same open showers and changing rooms as my wife at gyms etc. The Labour party at least acknowledges this is an issue.
-
I really struggle with this working class tory schtick / daily mail playbook.
We bailed out the banks during a global recession, we've endured years of austerity that has decimated services, schools, lives and hope in may areas. Most of my working life has seen me pay considerable tax (high rate tax payer) but all the institutions we should hold dear broken down and sold off.
We're being told by millionaires and billionaires that we can't afford a decent health service, public transport comparable to other European countries and a progressive tax system where the richest will pay more. compared to what we have got and what has happened over the past decade i'm more than happy to chance a labour government.
From what I saw yesterday and in the leaders debates the day before Labour has a plan, has a vision and some hope - the other parties don't. You have 3 shades of Tory - the remain wing (libDem) the one nation group in the middle and the Far Right nutters (Brexit Party)
So, as i've said before, Brexit is the conclusion of anger and depression not caused by the EU but by the failed neo-liberal model. As such i'll be voting Labour on the 12th, will accept that i'll contribute a bit more but in return will live in a country that is generally more happy, has well funded schools, good clean transport and isn't the US' b**ch.
-
My political views are quite similar, Andy, but we need to vote intelligently, ie tactically, to have any chance of avoiding five more years of this duplicitous Tory party.
I left the Labour Party due to Corbyn's historic anti-EU views, I am a Remainer as I believe leaving to be a massive mistake, so have no problems voting for the Libdem.
-
I am impressed with what she has done over the last year or two. However voting for her risks putting Corbyn in power, and keeping him out of power is my number one aim when deciding how to vote.
I am no supporter of Corbyn - I agree that he is not fit to be prime minister. However, the only alternative (Johnson) is also unfit to be prime minister. So we have a choice between two men who are clearly not up to the job. One will give us a hard Brexit, the other will hold a referendum between a softer Brexit and remain. It’s a no brainer!
-
Just had a mailshot on behalf of Anne Coffey - ex Labour MP for Stockport. She says - and I quote - "For progressive voters Lisa Smart is OUR candidate. She is the only one who can beat the Conservatives here. The Green Party are standing aside and I am writing to urge you to back Lisa to beat the Conservatives here. It is not easy to ask this after so many years working for Labour, so thank you for considering it for the future of our area and country".
I agree entirely with this. I think a hard Brexit will be a disaster for this country. A soft Brexit would cause less damage but what's the point - OK we keep advantages but have no say in future rules. I believe, as has been said before, the Brexit vote was a response to problems not of the EU's making. If the Tories are re-elected, these problems will get A LOT WORSE. I think Labour could transform the U.K. for the better and my heart supports them, but I will vote Lib Dem to try to kick out Wragg.
For information, Labour's spending plans have recently been supported by a large body of economists and academics. I would give them a go. Something has to change.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/general-election-labour-economy-spending-corbyn-boris-johnson-a9218041.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/general-election-labour-economy-spending-corbyn-boris-johnson-a9218041.html)
-
I fear that the split of the non-Tory vote will once again hand the constituency to William Wragg. I would never vote Conservative, but could be a bit happier if we at least had a hard-working MP who was a Conservative. The fact that less than 50% of the electorate will want him as their MP, but he'll still probably win, is depressing.
I have no desire to vote Lib Dem, largely for their stance on women's rights as noted by ringi, but a vote for Labour in Hazel Grove is truly a waste and will just hand another MP to Johnson and lead to a disastrous hard brexit (and labour's position on women's rights isn't exactly where I want it to be).
I don't think I've ever felt so depressed about an election in over 20 years of voting.
-
I don't think I've ever felt so depressed about an election in over 20 years of voting.
My thoughts exactly.
-
My thoughts exactly.
Ditto
-
Incidentally I see Wragg has again pulled out of doing a hustings. Just like he did in 2015. It's almost like he's afraid of actually talking to voters.
-
Incidentally I see Wragg has again pulled out of doing a hustings. Just like he did in 2015. It's almost like he's afraid of actually talking to voters.
Are there local hustings? I haven't seen any details anywhere.
-
Are there local hustings? I haven't seen any details anywhere.
Dialstone Methodist Church tomorrow at 10am.
https://www.facebook.com/events/dialstone-lane-methodist-church/a-good-society-general-election-2019-hustings/2479981342049877/
It's the only one I've heard of. Wragg had accepted but has pulled out - as reported by the Guardian's North of England editor on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/helenpidd/status/1199996923626885120
-
Dialstone Methodist Church tomorrow at 10am.
What a bizarre location. I hope there will be something locally, as in 2015, when all the candidates were present at the hustings in Marple.
-
What a bizarre location. I hope there will be something locally, as in 2015, when all the candidates were present at the hustings in Marple.
It's in the Hazel Grove Constituency so not that bizairre.
-
What a bizarre location. I hope there will be something locally, as in 2015, when all the candidates were present at the hustings in Marple.
What are you on about its a local venue.
-
What are you on about its a local venue.
Only by some strange definition of local. It's almost four miles away. By local, I mean within easy walking distance of Marple town centre, as was the case in 2015.
-
Only by some strange definition of local. It's almost four miles away. By local, I mean within easy walking distance of Marple town centre, as was the case in 2015.
Hustings only exist if someone organises them. Obviously someone has organised one at Dialstone Lane Methodist Church. It can be reached by getting the 384 bus then walking for 13 minutes according to Google. It can be reached within 30 minutes.
No one has organised a hustings closer to Marple. Although based on his form, it seems unlikely Wragg would deem it important to actually attend.
-
Hustings only exist if someone organises them. Obviously someone has organised one at Dialstone Lane Methodist Church. It can be reached by getting the 384 bus then walking for 13 minutes according to Google. It can be reached within 30 minutes.
No one has organised a hustings closer to Marple. Although based on his form, it seems unlikely Wragg would deem it important to actually attend.
hes in london on that date
-
hes in london on that date
Well why would you be in your constituency during an election?
You know what, he may have a valid excuse. But he last election he was mysteriously ill for the whole thing, and frankly after that anything real just looks like the boy who cried wolf to me. Especially when he's not the only one avoiding public scrutiny
-
I have voted in every election since the 1970 one that Ted Heath won and I have never been so disappointed and disillusioned by the quality of the parliamentarians we have today. None of them deserve our vote, they are all appalling.
-
I have voted in every election since the 1970 one that Ted Heath won and I have never been so disappointed and disillusioned by the quality of the parliamentarians we have today. None of them deserve our vote, they are all appalling.
You have three options:
1) Don't vote. If you take this one then you can have no complaints about the result has you've abnegated any responsibility. In my opinion, a coward's way out.
2) Vote for the least worst option. At least you've done something.
3) Do something about it. Join a political party that represents your views. If you can't find one, set one up yourself. There's never been an easier time in history to use instantaneous communications media that can reach billions of people in one go, as long as what you've got to say resonates with them.
Personally I wish there were compulsory voting. At least then people reap the consequences of their own actions instead of being able to sit back and complain and wash their hands of other people's decisions.
-
I have voted in every election since the 1970 one that Ted Heath won and I have never been so disappointed and disillusioned by the quality of the parliamentarians we have today. None of them deserve our vote, they are all appalling.
Dont vote then but dont moan after .
-
2) Vote for the least worst option. At least you've done something.
I take your point that people really ought to vote, but because of first past the post, if your preffered party/candidate isn't one of the two who can realistically win in your consituency, then it really makes no difference if you do or don't vote.
-
I take your point that people really ought to vote, but because of first past the post, if your preffered party/candidate isn't one of the two who can realistically win in your consituency, then it really makes no difference if you do or don't vote.
Depends if you have a ranking on those two that are in line. A worst and a least worst. If you equate both with the same value then no, it doesn't make a difference
Personally I would always implore people to spoil their ballot in that situation. Because that is counted. And if everyone in that situation spoiled their ballot, that would send a message. But not turning up, well that's just ignored.
-
Yes spoiling the ballot paper is definitely an option I'd consider
-
Dont vote then but dont moan after .
For once I agree with amazon 😳
-
Yes spoiling the ballot paper is definitely an option I'd consider
Glue yourself to a campaign bus? (or William Wragg's front door) ;)
-
Yes spoiling the ballot paper is definitely an option I'd consider
Sad really why just not vote and sit on the fence .
-
Sad really why just not vote and sit on the fence .
Spoiled papers are counted, recorded. They are viewed by people. If you don't turn up no one knows why you didn't. But turning up and saying no is recorded. Your intent is known.
-
Spoiled papers are counted, recorded. They are viewed by people. If you don't turn up no one knows why you didn't. But turning up and saying no is recorded. Your intent is known.
Still sad not got the bottle to vote .
-
Spoiled papers are counted, recorded. They are viewed by people. If you don't turn up no one knows why you didn't. But turning up and saying no is recorded. Your intent is known.
But whilst they are counted, no one knows why your ballot was spoiled. Some (most?) people accidentally spoil their ballots, rather than as a deliberate act of protest.
Obviously, FPTP should go, but even an option for non of the above would be a start. Until then, if your prefered candidate isn't one of the two who can win in your seat, voting is pointless, and people know that which contributes to low turnouts.
-
But whilst they are counted, no one knows why your ballot was spoiled. Some (most?) people accidentally spoil their ballots, rather than as a deliberate act of protest.
You can write on it if you want. And there are party representatives at the count who do look over the shoulders whilst the count is going on (and in some cases argue about whether a spoiled paper is spoiled...)
Obviously, FPTP should go, but even an option for non of the above would be a start. Until then, if your prefered candidate isn't one of the two who can win in your seat, voting is pointless, and people know that which contributes to low turnouts.
When I was at university, all our student elections were done by Single Transferable Vote, and had an option at the bottom: RON. Re-Open Nominations. I certainly don't see why we can't have something similar in government elections.
-
Here's what the bookies think about the election prospects here in Hazel Grove:
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/constituencies/next-uk-general-election-constituencies/hazel-grove
As you see, they think it's close. Tories are favourite, but not by much. If I were a betting man I might fancy a punt on the Lib Dems at 2:1.
For comparison, here's their assessment of the prospects at Cheadle. Even closer.......
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/constituencies/next-uk-general-election-constituencies/cheadle
-
Here's what the bookies think about the election prospects here in Hazel Grove:
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/constituencies/next-uk-general-election-constituencies/hazel-grove
As you see, they think it's close. Tories are favourite, but not by much. If I were a betting man I might fancy a punt on the Lib Dems at 2:1.
For comparison, here's their assessment of the prospects at Cheadle. Even closer.......
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/constituencies/next-uk-general-election-constituencies/cheadle
So have they opened and counted the postal votes .
-
Here's what the bookies think about the election prospects here in Hazel Grove:
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/constituencies/next-uk-general-election-constituencies/hazel-grove
As you see, they think it's close. Tories are favourite, but not by much. If I were a betting man I might fancy a punt on the Lib Dems at 2:1.
For comparison, here's their assessment of the prospects at Cheadle. Even closer.......
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/constituencies/next-uk-general-election-constituencies/cheadle
I think William Hill might need to do more research. Their odds on the Brexit Party winning...
-
Melancholy, stusmith asked you to describe how your life or those of your children or grand children will improve if we leave the EU. You replied:
stusmith and marplexile have dealt with much of that already. Each member state of the EU has its own laws, and those form the vast majority of law in each country. EU law applies only to trans-national issues - treaties, elections to the European Parliament, directives and regulations relating to the Single Market (Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievement). Since 1999, when records became available for the first time in an accessible format, the UK has voted “no” to legislation on 57 occasions. It has voted “yes” 2,474 times and abstained from voting 70 times. This translates into the UK opposing 2% of legislation, abstaining on 3% of it, and supporting 95% of it.
Above all, leaving these aspects of the EU behind will in no way make your life or your children's better, melancholy, Can you seriously imagine your son or daughter saying on 1 February next year, if the Tories have managed to wrench us out of the EU, 'oh mummy, mummy, I'm so happy that we now have a completely independent and fully accountable judicial system which isn't subserviant to a supranational court ' ;)
What it will do, however, is make us poorer. Cautious forecasts estimate a 2.5% hit on GDP - that takes about £50 billion out of the economy.
So "only" thousands of EU Directives become laws in this country then, with 95% of agreement. Trying to trivialise this and making smart remarks about important constitutional issues like laws and courts doesn't get away from the fact that they aren't made or established in this country.
You mention cautious forecasts. That's all they are... forecasts. That's all I gave as well. Which is why this argument is in a sense so futile and will always be so. Each side will blame the other for whatever goes from until time immemorial. And yes, I believe the ability to make one's own laws by the law-making body of my own country will make my life better. We managed to do that for centuries before the EU came and we can manage after it's gone.
-
And yes, I believe the ability to make one's own laws by the law-making body of my own country will make my life better.
Out of interest, why do you think this?
Personally, I don't care whether the laws are made by remote, out of touch, politicians in Westminster, or by remote, out of touch, politicians in Brussels, and I really don't see what difference it makes.
Although, the whole Brexit farce has shown the that Brussels politicians are at least somewhat more competent than the majority of the morons currently sitting in Westminster.
-
as for your 'wrong' comments earlier in this thread - as an example I refer to those re foot and mouth. Both outbreaks you refer to had nothing to do with the EU or EEC.
So my comments weren't all wrong, then. Thanks for clarifying.
I didn't say either FAM outbreak was caused directly by the EU or EEC - the first pre-dated our membership as you well know. But it was dealt with rather better than the second. The response to, and failure to contain or deal with the 2001 outbreak properly, was a direct result of EU derived legislation.
-
I believe the ability to make one's own laws by the law-making body of my own country will make my life better. We managed to do that for centuries before the EU came and we can manage after it's gone.
OK Melancholy, here’s an example of a EU law - it came into force last January. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_6853
This law has had the effect of preventing (or at least hampering) tax avoidance by international companies and the extremely wealthy people who own them. Some of those people own newspapers, which why the Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph etc have been indoctrinating us all with relentless anti-EU propaganda for the past three years and more.
If we leave the EU this law will no longer apply in the U.K., and the billionaire tax dodgers will breathe again. Will that ‘make your life better?’ I don’t think so - unless you too are a billionaire tax dodger!
-
OK Melancholy, here’s an example of a EU law - it came into force last January. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_6853
This law has had the effect of preventing (or at least hampering) tax avoidance by international companies and the extremely wealthy people who own them. Some of those people own newspapers, which why the Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph etc have been indoctrinating us all with relentless anti-EU propaganda for the past three years and more.
If we leave the EU this law will no longer apply in the U.K., and the billionaire tax dodgers will breathe again. Will that ‘make your life better?’ I don’t think so - unless you too are a billionaire tax dodger!
Such regulation should be no business at all of the EU. It should be a matter of international agreement between nations regardless of whether they are in the EU or not. The EU is most definitely not the body who should deal with such matters, or indeed any matters at all. The EU is not only not necessary, it is positively a danger to Europe. Why so many people love the EU (and are therefore are anti-European) I don't know. Pro Europeans are the ones who are anti EU.
-
You have three options:
1) Don't vote. If you take this one then you can have no complaints about the result has you've abnegated any responsibility. In my opinion, a coward's way out.
2) Vote for the least worst option. At least you've done something.
3) Do something about it. Join a political party that represents your views. If you can't find one, set one up yourself. There's never been an easier time in history to use instantaneous communications media that can reach billions of people in one go, as long as what you've got to say resonates with them.
Option 2 is the one most people go far. It's what I will do. When faced with candidates from three left wing parties, even the least worst option is pretty bad.
Option 3, form your own party or stand as an independent is certainly an option I'll consider.
Option 1 actually sounds like an option I might have to go for in the future if the three main parties drift even further leftward (if that's possible).
-
Pro Europeans are the ones who are anti EU.
The screens, nurse, the screens...... 😏
-
OK Melancholy, here’s an example of a EU law - it came into force last January. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_6853
This law has had the effect of preventing (or at least hampering) tax avoidance by international companies and the extremely wealthy people who own them. Some of those people own newspapers, which why the Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph etc have been indoctrinating us all with relentless anti-EU propaganda for the past three years and more.
If we leave the EU this law will no longer apply in the U.K., and the billionaire tax dodgers will breathe again. Will that ‘make your life better?’ I don’t think so - unless you too are a billionaire tax dodger!
You're completely missing my point. I didn't say that every single EU directive/law has been rubbish, indeed it would be unrealistic to do so for the many thousands of them. But even if just one of them was a bad law, then that's one too many. I've listed examples elsewhere of how I think it has damaged the country.
I am simply saying we should have the *ability* to own our lawmaking completely, so that any law we pass is done through a Parliament which is directly elected by, and accountable to, the British people. It's that simple.
As for your assertion of "relentless propaganda", presumably you are including the campaign and events since.
If we look at the actual facts, the referendum campaign was much more of split than you are portraying, including within newspaper groups. The Mail on Sunday and the Times wanted us to Remain, whereas Daily Mail and Sunday Times wanted Leave. Likewise the Mirror and Guardian groups wanted Remain which you failed to mention.
Interesting you talking of "indoctrination"... at least newspapers are far more upfront about the causes they champion. The BBC boasts that it is impartial on everything, but it is anything but. It was obliged by electoral law to be fair towards both sides *during* the campaign, but its clear bias towards Remain *since* the referendum has been obvious to those with half a brain. The most obvious example is Question Time / Any Questions which have hosted 60/40 Remainers/Leavers on its panels since the referendum result (according to IEA data) when the vote was 48/52.
-
I am simply saying we should have the *ability* to own our lawmaking completely, so that any law we pass is done through a Parliament which is directly elected by, and accountable to, the British people.
You mean like the European Parliament, which is directly elected by, and accountable to, the people of the U.K. and of the other 27 European member states?
But not for long! In a month’s time we will be out of the EU. And here’s another forecast: in due course, and in order to mitigate the damage to our economy and the impact of that on our jobs and standards of living, we will end up agreeing to comply with many EU regulations and directives relating to trade in both goods and services. Trouble is, those laws and regulations will be drawn up by a parliament in which we no longer have a vote. Doesn’t sound much like democracy, does it!
But hey, that’s OK, because it’s what we voted for 😏
-
You mean like the European Parliament, which is directly elected by, and accountable to, the people of the U.K. and of the other 27 European member states?
When I say own our lawmaking completely, that is exactly what I mean.
Your parallel is false.
In the UK we know that the people we elect will form both the senior house of legislature and the decision-making executive. Quite simple and straightforward.
In the EU, the executive is the Commission which as you must know, is unelected. Its commissioners are "appointed". This has nothing to do with accountability. Yet it is the main body of opinion, proposals and influence within the EU and the Parliament merely votes on whether to enact the Commission's proposals. So in practice, most EU law has already been decided by unelected representatives before the Parliament votes on it.
I'll leave you to tell me just how "democratic" that actually is.
-
The European Parliament is certainly more accountable and transparent than the British Government which only has the support of a minority of those who voted and only 27% of the electorate. The majority of the Hazel Grove constituency do not want Wragg and the majority of the British people do no want this Tory government.
-
The European Parliament is certainly more accountable and transparent than the British Government which only has the support of a minority of those who voted and only 27% of the electorate. The majority of the Hazel Grove constituency do not want Wragg and the majority of the British people do no want this Tory government.
The European parliament (which is an abomination and should not exist) is not solely accountable to the UK electorate and that is only one of its problems.
I suspect (but I admit I can't prove) that a majority of the Hazel Grove electorate do not want any of the candidates we had to choose from. Personally, I voted for William Wragg, not because I wanted him as our MP, but because I definitely did not want Lisa Smart and didn't want Mr Wilson either. I would rather we did not have a (nominally) Conservative government (which I do not expect to be a great success), but then I don't want a Labour government (which would be a catastrophe) or a Lib Dem government (which would also be a disaster). Mr Wragg and the current government are the least disliked option.
-
Looking forward to Brexit because of chlorinated chicken and hormone injected beef! We will be forced to accept them in order to get a trade deal with America. Will have absolutely no say in whether we want it or not, because we will have to accept it to get a trade deal with the US. It will be great because we will Take Back Control. And then be so desperate for a trade deal we will give that control to a foreign power. And have absolutely no say. But at least we will have a trade deal!
Also to look forward to: higher drugs prices, and the ability for US corporations to sue our government! It's going to be awesome!
Oh how we will laugh at the unaccountable European Commission once US companies start taking our government to corporate tribunals in order to gain access to the NHS! Those suckers still in Brussels, ha, we will laugh so hard at them!!!
Cos we is a global world power, not some tiny irrelevant tin pot country!
-
Looking forward to Brexit because of chlorinated chicken and hormone injected beef! We will be forced to accept them in order to get a trade deal with America. Will have absolutely no say in whether we want it or not, because we will have to accept it to get a trade deal with the US. It will be great because we will Take Back Control. And then be so desperate for a trade deal we will give that control to a foreign power. And have absolutely no say. But at least we will have a trade deal!
Also to look forward to: higher drugs prices, and the ability for US corporations to sue our government! It's going to be awesome!
Oh how we will laugh at the unaccountable European Commission once US companies start taking our government to corporate tribunals in order to gain access to the NHS! Those suckers still in Brussels, ha, we will laugh so hard at them!!!
Cos we is a global world power, not some tiny irrelevant tin pot country!
Guess your party lost .
-
I'll leave you to tell me just how "democratic" that actually is.
It's far from perfect, but probably more demonractic than the UK where 160K members of the conservative party (when we have a voting population of circa 46 million) get to decide who the prime minister is.
-
Looking forward to Brexit because of chlorinated chicken and hormone injected beef! We will be forced to accept them in order to get a trade deal with America.
Who wants a trade deal with the US? Certainly not the vast majority of the supporters of Brexit. A deal with the former Dominions would be welcome and with a great many other places, but not with the US. The prime minister may think differently, but if he does, he does not represent the people who voted to leave the EU.
-
Guess your party lost .
Yep. And I have long been resigned to that. But until evidence comes along to the contrary, I will remain unconvinced that what is happening is a sensible move.
(I am willing to be proved wrong. But still have yet to see any evidence - all these years in - that I made the wrong call.)
-
Who wants a trade deal with the US? Certainly not the vast majority of the supporters of Brexit. A deal with the former Dominions would be welcome and with a great many other places, but not with the US. The prime minister may think differently, but if he does, he does not represent the people who voted to leave the EU.
Who wants a trade deal with the US? Well our democratically elected government. That's why they are trying to get one.
Who wants a trade deal with "the dominions"? Brexiters who live in the past and think the commonwealth will save all.
But they won't. India will do us a trade deal at the cost of allowing visa free access to this country for its citizens. That's their price. They will not back down. Their price is generally considered unacceptable to many in the UK.
new Zealand will do a deal cos they want to flood the UK with their lamb thus destroying British sheep farmers. That's their price.
Australia frankly don't care. They are more interested in pursuing more local markets. Cos that's the thing with global trade. It's global but actually the most important trade is the trade on your doorstep, not the trade thousands of miles away.
Always, always, ALWAYS remember trade deals run two ways. Many Brexiters cry "the Commonwealth!" in their desire to get away from the EU but trade deals don't happen out of the good of a country's heart. No one in Canada is going "let's do a trade deal to help out the UK.". No. They are going "What can we get out of the UK that benefits us?". And ask yourself why India and Australia would prioritise us over trade deals with the far bigger EU? Hint: they won't.
Besides, the trade they can offer is still puny compared to what's on our doorstep. The best trade deal we can do for this country is the one we can do with the EU.
By the way, calling them "dominions" might not go down well with them... It's a bit, you know, patronising...
-
By the way, calling them "dominions" might not go down well with them... It's a bit, you know, patronising...
The expression was "Former Dominions".
-
The expression was "Former Dominions".
I notice you don't even bother replying to the rest of my comment. Why doesn't this surprise me?
If you think Australia is coming to our rescue, you are going to be very disappointed.
-
Message Deleted. Cos sod it. This is a circular discussion and it will keep going round in circles forever. And I can't live my life with this going round in circles forever.
-
In the EU, the executive is the Commission which as you must know, is unelected. Its commissioners are "appointed".
Not sure why 'appointed' is in inverted commas - the commissioners are indeed appointed, by the democratically elected governments of the 28 member states. The EU Commission is the rough equivalent of the UK civil service. Each commissioner therefore, in UK terms, combines the duties of both secretary of state and 'permanent secretary' (the top civil servant in any department of state). I hope that helps to clear up any confusion.
This has nothing to do with accountability.
The EU Commission is accountable to the European Parliament.
So in practice, most EU law has already been decided by unelected representatives before the Parliament votes on it. the Parliament merely votes on whether to enact the Commission's proposals.
So to take a comparable example from the way the process works here in the UK, would Melancholy say that new laws in this country are decided by individual ministers and their civil servants before Parliament 'merely' votes on them? No, I thought not!
I'll leave you to tell me just how "democratic" that actually is.
Happy to enlighten you, Melancholy: it is perfectly democratic, and a great deal more so than how these things work here in the UK, where no new law can be enacted until it has been approved by the indisputably undemocratic House of Lords! Until we have done something about that, we in this country would do well to avoid lecturing others on Democracy!
This is a circular discussion and it will keep going round in circles forever.
I'm afraid so. After the referendum three years ago, we Remainers were repeatedly told 'you lost - get over it', but we knew it was the wrong decision and as long as there was a chance of it being reversed we fought on. Now it's different - we will leave in a months time, so that issue is settled for good. The only question is, on what terms, when the brief transition period is over at the end of next year. That remains a huge unresolved issue, so there is still everything to play for.
-
Besides, the trade they can offer is still puny compared to what's on our doorstep. The best trade deal we can do for this country is the one we can do with the EU.
Ideally, we would do a trade deal with each European nation separately, but that isn't going to happen yet; not until Europe comes to its senses and dissolves the anti-European EU. For now, the best we can do is a deal with the EU where for our exports to them we must follow their rules and for imports from them they must follow our rules and both sides agree not to change rules unnecessarily. For the vast majority of trade, which is internal to the UK, our rules apply. We also need to ensure that cross border trade only happens when necessary. There should be encouragement to use UK sources whenever possible (and of course each nation should do the same for its own industry). Getting this done will not be easy, but is essential. The real success for Brexit will be encouraging everyone else to leave. That must be our long term aim; restoring a sensible Europe.
As for our Commonwealth friends, let's see what happens. I think you will be surprised. Time will tell.
-
I'm afraid so. After the referendum three years ago, we Remainers were repeatedly told 'you lost - get over it', but we knew it was the wrong decision and as long as there was a chance of it being reversed we fought on. Now it's different - we will leave in a months time, so that issue is settled for good. The only question is, on what terms, when the brief transition period is over at the end of next year. That remains a huge unresolved issue, so there is still everything to play for.
What there still is to be decided is the future of Europe. Will the disaster of the EU be perpetuated, or will civilisation return and the EU be abolished? The UK has a part to play in that. Brexit will not be complete until Europe is restored and the EU consigned to history alongside other failed attempts at destroying Europe.
-
will civilisation return and the EU be abolished?
Would that be the ‘civilisation’ that prevailed before the forerunners of the EU were established after WWII? The civilisation that had what are now the member states of the EU at war with one another almost constantly for 2,000 years? No thanks Condate!
-
Ideally, we would do a trade deal with each European nation separately,
Why is that the ideal? Far more efficient to do one deal than to do 27. one set of rules, not 27, etc, etc.
but that isn't going to happen yet; not until Europe comes to its senses and dissolves the anti-European EU. For now, the best we can do is a deal with the EU where for our exports to them we must follow their rules
correct
and for imports from them they must follow our rules
Incorrect - they will continue to follow their rules and we will have to like it or lump it
and both sides agree not to change rules unnecessarily.
incorrect - they will continue to change their rules as best benifits them, and we will have to like it or lump it - we're leaving remember, we will no longer have a say
For the vast majority of trade, which is internal to the UK, our rules apply.
No, given that the vast majority of goods are imported, the rules of bodies which we're trading with will apply.
We also need to ensure that cross border trade only happens when necessary.
Why?
But also, have you not been paying attention - its very necessary and unless we want to abandon our way of life and go back to subsitence farming, it's not going to change.
There should be encouragement to use UK sources whenever possible (and of course each nation should do the same for its own industry). Getting this done will not be easy,
Now that's quite some understatement. But also not what we were told/promised when "we" voted to leave.
but is essential. The real success for Brexit will be encouraging everyone else to leave. That must be our long term aim; restoring a sensible Europe.
::)
As for our Commonwealth friends, let's see what happens. I think you will be surprised.
I'd be very surprised - New Zealand has a population of circa 5 milllion, ie twice as many people live in London than live in the entire country.
There are only a handful of commonwealth countries with whom trade deals might come close to replacing what we're losing from the EU - but you're truely demented if you genuinely believe that they will give us preferential deals for "old time's sake" (if anything our colonial history would make them more inclined to try and screw us as much as possible), at best we'll get an equitable deal (ie what we had with the EU) but as we've lost our biggest selling point (being a member of the EU) we won't really have a lot to offer.
Time will tell.
Indeed it will.
I hope I'm wrong, but I just can't see it.
-
Not sure why 'appointed' is in inverted commas - the commissioners are indeed appointed, by the democratically elected governments of the 28 member states. The EU Commission is the rough equivalent of the UK civil service. Each commissioner therefore, in UK terms, combines the duties of both secretary of state and 'permanent secretary' (the top civil servant in any department of state). I hope that helps to clear up any confusion.
The confusion is entirely yours, Dave:
• Appointed was in inverted commas to highlight that the Executive who formulate and decide the vast majority of EU legislation is *unelected*, thus undemocratic. Whereas our Executive is *elected* - or democratic.
• The EU has its own civil service called, er, the European Civil Service. So one can't compare the Commission - however "roughly" - to our civil service. I understand your confusion though, as EU civil service is often described as the commission. But it really isn't.
it is perfectly democratic, and a great deal more so than how these things work here in the UK, where no new law can be enacted until it has been approved by the indisputably undemocratic House of Lords! Until we have done something about that, we in this country would do well to avoid lecturing others on Democracy!
Your view of democracy is rather strange, then!
But congratulations anyway, your topsy-turvy comparison in fact highlights the top-heavy undemocratic EU in its full glory:
• The elected EP votes through legislation already formulated by the unelected Commission.
• Our executive formulates legislation based on its majority in the elected Commons, then the unelected Lords votes to approve, review or amend bills already voted for by the commons.
As you must know, the Lords (since 1911 anyway) has no power to debunk bills, only to delay. And much of its function of reviewing and amending is actually very useful in fine-tuning legislation. It's never been elected for us to make any direct comparisons with any other sort of parliamentary democracy, so I don't know what your problem with it is, in terms of the UK system being any less democratic than it ever has been. The Blair reforms only served to increase the politicisation of the Lords in the late 90s which has inevitably led to people saying it should now be fully elected. But this would change anything in practice unless they gave it more powers - which is not really what anyone needs.
-
Can you explain why you want to take my and others citizenship away, why you what to remove my freedom of movement and for no measurable benefit.
-
A bit of light reading for Melancholy 😏. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2019/02/19/is-the-european-union-governed-by-unelected-bureaucrats/
-
Isn't NATO run by unelected faceless bureaucracts? Isn't it time those who voted Leave started to call for our withdrawal from this organisation that could involve us in in a war without even asking us or do we have the usual leave double standards about this.
-
Quote from: wheels on November 10, 2019, 07:22:02 PM
I wonder why we don't have the blue passport brigade clamoring for us to leave the un-elected, un-accountable, undemocratic NATO.
Perhaps because NATO is not a political alliance, but a military one. Its raison d'etre died with the Soviet Union, but vested interests kept it going.
***
wheels, see above, I answered you two months ago. An entirely separate matter.
Can you explain why you want to take my and others citizenship away, why you what to remove my freedom of movement and for no measurable benefit.
Was this directed at me? If so, can you point me to where I said that, please?
A bit of light reading for Melancholy 😏. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2019/02/19/is-the-european-union-governed-by-unelected-bureaucrats/
Dave posts links without bothering to respond properly to what I've said. It's also clear he hasn't even read it properly. If he had, he'd note that the writer (apparently an LSE graduate - not exactly Michel Barnier), attempts to argue that the Commission is not an unelected bureaucracy, then in the next sentence admits that "technically" it is, er, an "unelected bureaucracy"!
I wonder what her class of degree was...
She confirms that the Commission proposes EU legislation. She also acknowledges that each Commissioner is appointed. So, in fact, there's nothing in the article which disproves anything I've said. It also helpfully confirms my previous point that the unelected Commission/civil service proposes legislation that is approved by the European Parliament, which is the wrong way round to the way we do it here in the UK.
I'd like to learn of any law passed in this country which was proposed by our civil service (Clue - You won't find one).
Try again, Dave ;)
-
the unelected Commission/civil service proposes legislation that is approved by the European Parliament, which is the wrong way round to the way we do it here in the UK
One more try......... As I have already explained, Melancholy, the 28 European Commissioners (soon to be 27, sadly) are each appointed (or "appointed" if you prefer ;-) by the democratically elected government of their own member state. The commissioners propose legislation to the elected EU parliament, which considers it and approves it (or not).
In the UK, the equivalents of EU Commissioners are our Ministers of the Crown, who are also appointed, in their case by our unelected monarch, on the recommendation of our elected Prime Minister. Ministers propose legislation to the UK parliament, which considers it and approves it (or not).
They are slightly different processes but they are both undoubtedly democratic. If there is one that is more democratic than the other, it is the EU procedure, because the decisions of the EU Parliament cannot be changed by an unelected upper chamber.
-
I see William Wragg has voted to remove the rights of Students to take part in Erasmus, an extraordinary programme of trans-European educational exchange, from which millions benefited over the years.
How sad that our children and grandchildren will no longer have that opportunity. Of course the wealthy will be able to afford to pay for their children and grandchildren to study abroad. 😡
-
Wragg likes to boast of his interest in education. I believe he was a teacher for a short time, and in the last parliament he served as a member of the backbench education select committee.
But all that obviously counts for nothing, because he’s a scorched-earth Brexiteer and everything is secondary to that.
Sad times 😕
-
Wragg likes to boast of his interest in education. I believe he was a teacher for a short time, and in the last parliament he served as a member of the backbench education select committee.
But all that obviously counts for nothing, because he’s a scorched-earth Brexiteer and everything is secondary to that.
Sad times 😕your another loser dave you dont like it .
-
your another loser dave you dont like it .
No we don't. Why should/would we?
-
“ your another loser dave you dont like it”
As ever, Amazon, it is a delight to bask in the radiance of your charm 😏
-
“ your another loser dave you dont like it”
As ever, Amazon, it is a delight to bask in the radiance of your charm 😏
I ;)no Happy new year .
-
“ your another loser dave you dont like it”
I seem to recall
2016 - You lost get over it
2017 - You lost get over it
2018 - You lost get over it
2019 - You've definitely lost get over it
2020 - We are all in this together, lets come together to make this work.
I don't think so, you wanted this, you make it work you own it and without our help or support.
We can only now do small things but one of the most powerful is to withhold our money from any national and local Marple business that supports Brexit. Superdrug are an obvious national company to not give our money to in Marple.
-
“ your another loser dave you dont like it”
I seem to recall
2016 - You lost get over it
2017 - You lost get over it
2018 - You lost get over it
2019 - You've definitely lost get over it
2020 - We are all in this together, lets come together to make this work.
I don't think so, you wanted this, you make it work you own it and without our help or support.
We can only now do small things but one of the most powerful is to withhold our money from any national and local Marple business that supports Brexit. Superdrug are an obvious national company to not give our money to in Marple.
Ok dont suport superdrug they close another empty shop in marple great thinking have you not noticed the empty shops now in marple .
-
We can only now do small things but one of the most powerful is to withhold our money from any national and local Marple business that supports Brexit.
Never thought I would hear myself saying this, but it’s a pity we haven’t got a Wetherspoons in Marple. Then we could boycott it 😏
-
One more try......... As I have already explained, Melancholy, the 28 European Commissioners (soon to be 27, sadly) are each appointed (or "appointed" if you prefer ;-) by the democratically elected government of their own member state. The commissioners propose legislation to the elected EU parliament, which considers it and approves it (or not).
In the UK, the equivalents of EU Commissioners are our Ministers of the Crown, who are also appointed, in their case by our unelected monarch, on the recommendation of our elected Prime Minister. Ministers propose legislation to the UK parliament, which considers it and approves it (or not).
They are slightly different processes but they are both undoubtedly democratic. If there is one that is more democratic than the other, it is the EU procedure, because the decisions of the EU Parliament cannot be changed by an unelected upper chamber.
But the EP's decisions are on proposals made by an unelected executive. We keep coming back to this, don't we?
And who are the commissioners accountable to? Can they be voted out if the public don't like the laws that they propose? Can their directives that become law be repealed by the member countries once they've been enacted? Do tell.
We certainly know that in this country an unpopular government (that's the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Crown) can rightly be booted unceremoniously out within 24 hours of votes being cast, whilst pretty much any UK law could be repealed at a stroke if a new government with a mandate so wished. Thankfully past EU laws can now be repealed after Article 50 was triggered. Though any government with the actual spine to do this is unlikely.
And you shouldn't try and distort the nature of UK's parliamentary democracy by trying to infer that the Queen's position is anything other than ceremonial. I'd invite you to specify the last time she refused to appoint a Minister to Government (clue - you won't be able to because she hasn't).
Quite apart from all this, we haven't even begun to discuss the actual practical effect of the EU's wonderful democracy at work. So it can transpire that an unelected commissioner from that great farming island of Malta could have equal influence on the formulation and outcome of UK agricultural law than our own unelected UK commissioner, and the votes of the Luxembourgian and Lithuanian people (all in huge turnouts of course :-)) can elect EU members of Parliament to vote it through.
Did I mention Malta? Ah yes, the curiosity of the European Parliament which decides how many seats a country can get. Malta has 6 MEPs from an electorate of 340,000. The UK has 73 MEPs from an electorate of 47,500,000. Which essentially means that Maltese voters have over 10 times more power than UK voters. Democratic? You decide.
And let's not even mention the great British Remainer public that's so passionate and engaged about the EU that the last European elections to be held before the referendum bagged a whopping 35.6% turnout, all under a PR system where every vote counts. In fact, the entire turnout of that vote would still have lost the referendum even if they'd all voted Remain. Though when you consider that UKIP was the biggest party that seems remote!
Let's get back to good old fashioned Parliamentary sovereignty. Any step there is in the right direction.
-
SNIP
We certainly know that in this country an unpopular government (that's the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Crown) can rightly be booted unceremoniously out within 24 hours of votes being cast, whilst pretty much any UK law could be repealed at a stroke if a new government with a mandate so wished. Thankfully past EU laws can now be repealed after Article 50 was triggered. Though any government with the actual spine to do this is unlikely.
SNIP
Let's get back to good old fashioned Parliamentary sovereignty. Any step there is in the right direction.
I wonder, could you explain how I or any other member of the electorate 'boot out' the current Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and stop them from having any involvement in our democracy?!
It's strikes me as bizarre that so many brexiteers scream democracy and then conveniently forget the 790+ un-elected mates of current and former prime minsters that still arbitrate on all sorts of things.
If your issue is with direct election or representative forms of government (or perceived lack thereof) then you should join the campaign for electoral reform.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/elected-house-of-lords/#action-cta-anchor (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/elected-house-of-lords/#action-cta-anchor)
-
I wonder, could you explain how I or any other member of the electorate 'boot out' the current Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and stop them from having any involvement in our democracy?!
My full statement - that an unpopular government (including ministers) can be booted out after votes are cast - is unchanged by your straw man. Nicky Morgan (or whatever she's going to be called) may well serve 5 years in Johnson's government, but she won't then serve another 5 years in a Labour replacement. Therefore she - as a member of the govt - would be booted out of office.
Then again I might be wrong. Perhaps you could entertain me with examples of any peers that have kept governmental positions in a change of red/blue government since we've had universal suffrage?
It's strikes me as bizarre that so many brexiteers scream democracy and then conveniently forget the 790+ un-elected mates of current and former prime minsters that still arbitrate on all sorts of things.
Interesting you inferring that my posts are "screams". These are tactics usually employed to portray people who disagree with you as irrational and hysterical. Benefit of the doubt given this time.
You may care to examine my earlier posts which show that I do not "forget" the House of Lords. For your benefit I'll repeat - they are unelected, but they don't set legislative agenda. They can't prevent legislation from passing in a well organised session. EU commissioners *do* set the agenda. If you dispute this, show how I am wrong with facts and argument.
If your issue is with direct election or representative forms of government (or perceived lack thereof) then you should join the campaign for electoral reform.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/elected-house-of-lords/#action-cta-anchor (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/elected-house-of-lords/#action-cta-anchor)
I don't want electoral reform in the UK. I don't really want constitutional reform in the UK. The Lords was a far better chamber before Tony's Cronies came along (a deliberate Blair tactic to gain a majority), and the statistics show that Labour have appointed their own peers at least as equally as the Tories since 1997 (it may even be higher). An elected second chamber would be a huge mistake.
I just want our country to govern itself. The abject recent failure and weakness of the two major parties (in fact the entire political establishment) has been tremendously damaging to the constitutional stability - and therefore politics. But that's not the fault of the two-party electoral system which has a history of delivering, on the whole, decisive majority government.
I certainly have no interest in trying to reform the EU electoral system. In any case, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how I'd go about doing it even if that were possible (I'd take a bet that it isn't!).
-
Our success in almost reaching the sunny uplands of a golden post-Brexit era has been acknowledged...
https://www.lcdviews.com/2020/01/18/united-kingdom-wins-darwin-award/
(https://www.lcdviews.com/2020/01/18/united-kingdom-wins-darwin-award/)
If this is fake news we certainly should have won it.
-
Only 5 more days go and then NHS funding will be increased by £350m per week.
-
Only 5 more days go and then NHS funding will be increased by £350m per week.
The remainers LOST .
-
No society and the country has last.
-
No society and the country has last.
Evidence of this please...
-
The remainers LOST .
Correct, well done. Your point is?
-
The remainers LOST
We all lost, remainers and leaders alike. All 500 million people in the EU lost. The only winners were a small group of shadowy international financiers (some of whom gave us the 2008 world financial crash) who want to make even more money by turning the U.K. into a cheap-labour offshore sweatshop with low employment rights and inadequate environmental laws. And of course their delightful friends Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin who see a united Europe standing up for freedom, democracy and the rule of law as a threat to their personal ambitions.
And because of that, 17.4 million gullible people were conned into voting for something which will make them poorer and (quite possibly, in the long run) less safe. So yes Amazon, we lost!
-
Now Farage has stated that if Brexit "doesn't work out" then we can apply to re-join. You couldn't make it up! At least Farage, Johnson and the rest now have the onerous task of trying to get back at least some of what we have lost by leaving the EU, plus there will no longer be any scapegoats for UK economic failure. Or will they try to blame the EU for not giving us what we, now as an outsider, will impossibly demand?
-
Or will they try to blame the EU for not giving us what we, now as an outsider, will impossibly demand?
You bet they will ::)
-
No society and the country has last.
Society and eventually Europe have won. The battle will not be over until all the nations in the EU are liberated and can begin to form a new, better Europe. The fight against the EU is not primarily about the UK; it is about the future of Europe. Does it turn its back on all that makes it Europe and keep the EU, or does it move forward and free itself from the anti-European EU.
-
Welcome back Condate. It's great to have the benefit of your uniquely wacky perspective. :)
So perhaps Condate can flesh out his vision and enlighten us as to exactly in what way the EU is 'anti-European? If Europe were to 'move forward and free itself from the anti-European EU', what exactly would it be moving forward to?
-
The remainers LOST .
Quite right. You go ahead and celebrate. While you're at it - you can celebrate this too. A nice gift from your wealthy Tory friends.
"New analysis has claimed that the possible reallocation of council funding could redirect hundreds of millions of pounds from so-called left-behind communities in the north of England to the leafy southern shires.
The analysis, commissioned by the Local Government Association, says that such a move would leave many newly Conservative voting ‘red wall’ areas facing fresh cuts to local services. Under a review of the local authority funding formula, £320 million a year could be shifted out of councils in England’s most deprived areas while Tory-controlled shire councils mainly in the south-east gain £300 million."
https://governmentbusiness.co.uk/news/27012020/former-red-wall-areas-could-miss-out-council-funding (https://governmentbusiness.co.uk/news/27012020/former-red-wall-areas-could-miss-out-council-funding)
-
Welcome back Condate. It's great to have the benefit of your uniquely wacky perspective. :)
So perhaps Condate can flesh out his vision and enlighten us as to exactly in what way the EU is 'anti-European? If Europe were to 'move forward and free itself from the anti-European EU', what exactly would it be moving forward to?
As I have mentioned before, read "Europe and the Faith" by Hilaire Belloc (or at least a summary, or the last paragraph). It will tell you what Europe was, is and must be in the future.
-
Ah - now I understand - it's all about Catholicism! The EU, with its liberal democracies and its tolerant, diverse, multi-faith, multi-ethnic culture, is everything that Belloc would have despised.
So Condate's view of the Europe of the future is actually the Europe of the past - some time around the fifteenth century, in fact, before the Protestant reformation. You're welcome to it, Condate ;)
Incidentally, on another matter, has anyone else noticed this new post: https://www.marple-uk.com/smf/index.php?topic=8562.0
It says it's for leavers only - they are invited to indicate what sort of Brexit they expect to get. But - surprise surprise - there have been no responses. Could that be because the leavers haven't the faintest idea what they voted for - they only know what they voted against? Surely not.........
-
Ah - now I understand - it's all about Catholicism! The EU, with its liberal democracies and its tolerant, diverse, multi-faith, multi-ethnic culture, is everything that Belloc would have despised.
So Condate's view of the Europe of the future is actually the Europe of the past - some time around the fifteenth century, in fact, before the Protestant reformation. You're welcome to it, Condate ;)
Incidentally, on another matter, has anyone else noticed this new post: https://www.marple-uk.com/smf/index.php?topic=8562.0
It says it's for leavers only - they are invited to indicate what sort of Brexit they expect to get. But - surprise surprise - there have been no responses. Could that be because the leavers haven't the faintest idea what they voted for - they only know what they voted against? Surely not.........
The countdown has begun only a few hours left ..to freedom .
-
Only a few hours to the loss of our freedoms and citizenship. The racists are removing from us our rights and citizenship.
-
only a few hours left ..to freedom .
Amazon, what is it that you will be free to do tomorrow that you can’t do today?
-
As I have mentioned before, read "Europe and the Faith" by Hilaire Belloc (or at least a summary, or the last paragraph). It will tell you what Europe was, is and must be in the future.
Ah - Religion is involved. As Steven Weinberg said...“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
-
Only a few hours to the loss of our freedoms and citizenship. The racists are removing from us our rights and citizenship.
Who are the racists? Those of us who hate the EU and love Europe and Europeans (and those from the rest of the world too)? I fail to see how caring about all the people of Europe and the world is racist.
Our citizenship, like all citizenship, is about fealty. Our fealty is to the Queen. One thing about fealty is respecting the rights of others to own fealty to their lords. I expect the people of the other nations to be loyal to their head of state, just as we are to ours and hope that all the rulers of European nations and indeed all the people too recognise our common European history and heritage (which has nothing to do with the EU) and the need for cooperation and friendly relations (which has nothing to do with the EU).
-
Our citizenship, like all citizenship, is about fealty. Our fealty is to the Queen. One thing about fealty is respecting the rights of others to own fealty to their lords.
:o
If that is the extent of your argument, I really would give up now.
Fealty? Really? Is that the golden age of Britain that Brexit is going to provide for us again?
-
Our citizenship, like all citizenship, is about fealty. Our fealty is to the Queen. One thing about fealty is respecting the rights of others to own fealty to their lords.
Fealty (noun): the feudal obligation by which the tenant or vassal was bound to be faithful to his lord;
That says it all, I think. Fealty is vassalage - blind, unthinking obedience, the complete opposite of the freedom and democracy which is at the heart of the European Union. The EU is a partnership of free countries, in which for the past seventy years, people have worked together to ensure that the bloodshed of the past 2,000 years will never happen again.
Let's all be grateful that we don't live on Planet Condate......... ::)
-
Fealty (noun): the feudal obligation by which the tenant or vassal was bound to be faithful to his lord;
That says it all, I think. Fealty is vassalage - blind, unthinking obedience, the complete opposite of the freedom and democracy which is at the heart of the European Union. The EU is a partnership of free countries, in which for the past seventy years, people have worked together to ensure that the bloodshed of the past 2,000 years will never happen again.
Let's all be grateful that we don't live on Planet Condate......... ::)
Oh, hello! We're back on "Planet Dave", where by implication any European country that is outside the EU is unwilling or unable to work for peace, and where laws such as the implementation of metric weights and measures that forced British shopkeepers to be prosecuted for selling in imperial measures are just one of many aspects of "working together" to avoid bloodshed!
-
It’s OK Melancholy - now we are out of the clutches of the hated EU we are free to have bananas any shape we want ;)
Seriously, Melancholy, metrication is a bad example to use, because the U.K. adopted the metric system in the mid 1960s, some years before we joined what was then the EEC. But we still go out for a pint, and I weigh 13 stone ?? lb, and later today I’ll drive 12 miles to work. Ever bought vegetables by the etto in an Italian market? I think it’s about 3 ounces. The big bad EU is metric, but it’s also civilised and relaxed about local variations and traditions. But that’s not what the Daily Mail would have you believe, of course. ::)
-
Brexiteers! You can buy your commemorative 50p's on Ebay for £17.95 (free postage). Better hurry - he's sold 28 already!!
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PRE-SALE-2020-Brexit-50p-coin-del-late-Feb/133298985536?hash=item1f093d1a40:g:9MgAAOSwWxxeLer9
(https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PRE-SALE-2020-Brexit-50p-coin-del-late-Feb/133298985536?hash=item1f093d1a40:g:9MgAAOSwWxxeLer9)
-
Forgot the 50p coins, I want my £350m NOW!
-
Forgot the 50p coins, I want my £350m NOW!
In coins
-
It’s OK Melancholy - now we are out of the clutches of the hated EU we are free to have bananas any shape we want ;)
Seriously, Melancholy, metrication is a bad example to use, because the U.K. adopted the metric system in the mid 1960s, some years before we joined what was then the EEC. But we still go out for a pint, and I weigh 13 stone ?? lb, and later today I’ll drive 12 miles to work. Ever bought vegetables by the etto in an Italian market? I think it’s about 3 ounces. The big bad EU is metric, but it’s also civilised and relaxed about local variations and traditions. But that’s not what the Daily Mail would have you believe, of course. ::)
If it's a bad example, why were British shopkeepers prosecuted for selling in pounds and ounces?
-
If it's a bad example, why were British shopkeepers prosecuted for selling in pounds and ounces?
They were mostly market-trading refusniks who decided to make a stand by ONLY selling in imperial. The law stated you needed prices in both, which is which you buy a pound of jam in 454g. They could easily have avoided it by adding one line to their prices. It's a non-story.
On that point, I was taught metric only when I was in primary school in 1974. I have NEVER officially been taught imperial measurements.
-
They were mostly market-trading refusniks who decided to make a stand by ONLY selling in imperial. The law stated you needed prices in both, which is which you buy a pound of jam in 454g. They could easily have avoided it by adding one line to their prices. It's a non-story.
Non-story? Do you seriously think someone should be made to be a criminal for selling in pounds and ounces? There were an estimated 38,000 of your "refusniks" who continued to sell in imperial because it's what their customers wanted. After the Steve Thoburn case they were understandably frightened to continue doing that.
I cited that case because it directly contradicts Dave's claim that the EU has been a peaceful, freedom-loving democracy "working in partnership". If it respected "freedom" then the Metric Directive would never have got off the ground, and wouldn't have passed into UK law. By such means are people bullied into changing their behaviours.
On that point, I was taught metric only when I was in primary school in 1974. I have NEVER officially been taught imperial measurements.
Nothing to do with my point. Do you mentally convert pints into litres when you go to a pub because it's what you were taught at school?
-
This is just so very very sad. That an organisation established in the aftermath of two catastrophic world wars - a wonderfully idealistic vision to bring by to an end 2,000 years of war in Western Europe- should end with squabbling over weights and measures. So very sad.
-
This is just so very very sad. That an organisation established in the aftermath of two catastrophic world wars - a wonderfully idealistic vision to bring to an end 2,000 years of war in Western Europe- should end with squabbling over weights and measures. So very sad.
I'm sad that this particular "squabble" started with you casually dismissing criminal proceedings against a British subject over an utterly unnecessary piece of legislation. I know it's hard to argue against facts, but it's dishonest to trivialise them by just repeating what you've said earlier.
The main practical bulwark against war in Western Europe since 1945 was the combination of the United Nations and NATO. The EU was not the only project to rebuild European relations/trade after the war. But its origins started long before then anyway (look up Spinoza, Salter and Monnet).
The one thing you have right is that the EU project was always utterly idealistic. In fact, it was due to the fanatical fervour of its founders that it supplanted the other equally laudable but more moderate efforts to facilitate good relations between nations (such as EFTA), but deliberately hid true intentions of a stifling political union until much later on down the line.
-
The main practical bulwark against war in Western Europe since 1945 was the combination of the United Nations and NATO.
.
This is a misconception commonly claimed by Brexiters wishing to play down the achievements of the EU. The United Nations was established in the late 1940s to advance the cause of world peace. It now has nearly 200 members - most countries in the world. Sadly, many of these have been or are still at war with one another. The UN is a worthy organisation but it has never prevented war, unfortunately.
NATO is a military alliance between the USA and the countries of western Europe, set up to co-ordinate our response in the event of attack by the then Soviet Union. That’s all.
We are enjoying the longest period of peace between the countries of Western Europe for 2,000 years. That is what matters, not weights and measures - or bananas for that matter!
-
This is a misconception commonly claimed by Brexiters wishing to play down the achievements of the EU. The United Nations was established in the late 1940s to advance the cause of world peace. It now has nearly 200 members - most countries in the world. Sadly, many of these have been or are still at war with one another. The UN is a worthy organisation but it has never prevented war, unfortunately.
Who mentioned other countries "at war with one another"? I specifically mentioned Western Europe. Claims that the EU has prevented war in Western Europe carry no more weight than claims that the UN / NATO have prevented war in Western Europe. Don't try to change the subject.
You heard it here first, and then second, and then third... Dave continually seeks to trivialise someone being arrested by the police for selling in pounds and ounces by saying that it doesn't matter.
For every law against weights and measurements, there's another law that allows rampant Spanish fishermen to eviscerate North Sea fishing stocks (ours were rather good at conserving them properly), or a law against meat storage that sent loads of companies out of business, or a law that means women have to pay higher premiums for their life insurance even though it should be cheaper because they live longer, and more for their car insurance when statistically they have less accidents. But none of this matters, of course!
-
For every law against weights and measurements, there's another law that allows rampant Spanish fishermen to eviscerate North Sea fishing stocks (ours were rather good at conserving them properly), or a law against meat storage that sent loads of companies out of business, or a law that means women have to pay higher premiums for their life insurance even though it should be cheaper because they live longer, and more for their car insurance when statistically they have less accidents. But none of this matters, of course!
So, what laws do you want to change come 1/1/21 please Melancholyflower?
RH.
-
So, what laws do you want to change come 1/1/21 please Melancholyflower?
RH.
Read my earlier posts, I've said so often enough.
-
Read my earlier posts, I've said so often enough.
Can I ask that you to indulge me. I've read all 200 posts during the life of this thread and can't recall you ever saying. Sure, you've said what's wrong with Europe but not what specific laws you would change on 1/1/21.
RH.
-
Dave continually seeks to trivialise someone being arrested by the police for selling in pounds and ounces by saying that it doesn't matter.
Sigh...... 🙄. This is indeed trivial and it’s also boring. But I suppose I had better explain. Most countries have standardised weights and measures for the protection of consumers against being ripped off. So in the UK it has for many years been illegal to sell in quantities such as the bushel, the peck and the stone. A few years ago a publican was fined for selling beer by the half litre (the standard measure is the pint). For some reason the Melancholies of this world never made a fuss about that in the Daily Mail.
Are we really going to turn our back on seventy years of peace in order to scrap consumer protection laws? I really hope not!
-
Sigh...... 🙄. This is indeed trivial and it’s also boring. But I suppose I had better explain. Most countries have standardised weights and measures for the protection of consumers against being ripped off. So in the UK it has for many years been illegal to sell in quantities such as the bushel, the peck and the stone. A few years ago a publican was fined for selling beer by the half litre (the standard measure is the pint). For some reason the Melancholies of this world never made a fuss about that in the Daily Mail.
"Sigh..... ::)"
Who said we were turning our backs on peace? Anyone?
Lazily stereotyping people who disagree with you as Daily Mail readers - as well as being irrelevant - is also shabbily incorrect:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1042009/Pub-threatened-hefty-fine-serving-lager-litre-glasses-instead-pints.html
You must try harder :)
You still haven't been able to link "peace in Western Europe" to the mountain of unnecessary legislation we've had to endure.
Perhaps because, say, France, Germany and Britain now weigh all their fruit and vegetables in kilos and grams a war has thus been prevented?
If that sounds trivial (clue - it is) - then why enact it at all?
-
Perhaps you could highlight some of this unnecessary legislation.
-
You heard it here first, and then second, and then third... Dave continually seeks to trivialise someone being arrested by the police for selling in pounds and ounces by saying that it doesn't matter.
axctually they were prosecuted for ONLY selling in pounds and ounces. If they'd posted the equivalent metric valies, there wouldn'thave been an issue. But hey, let's not let a good soundbit get away eh?
FWIW I was born in '72 and was educated in metric. there are certain measurements wher we still use imperial e.g. pints and miles, but my education was in metric in the textbooks with imperial measures added by the teachers. anyone who wants to go back to metric is quite frankly old and not going to be around for that much longer
-
On the subject of measures, rather than Brexit, we have a real mish mash in the UK now.
If asked, most people would give their height and weight in imperial measures. Unless they have much contact with medical people, then it’s metric.
Looking at restaurant menus portion sizes, of grills for example, are usually given in ounces.
Go to a DIY store and just about all timber and sheet materials are metric.
Buy a burger and it’s a quarter pounder very often.
I buy my milk in pints, but my spirits in litres.
I buy my fuel in litres but measure consumption in MPG.
The attempt to force standardisation upon us has caused lots of confusion and resistance from the general public.
-
I am not the least bit confused and am perfectly happy to mix my measures.
-
I am not the least bit confused and am perfectly happy to mix my measures.
Me too
-
You heard it here first, and then second, and then third... Dave continually seeks to trivialise someone being arrested by the police for selling in pounds and ounces by saying that it doesn't matter.
axctually they were prosecuted for ONLY selling in pounds and ounces. If they'd posted the equivalent metric valies, there wouldn'thave been an issue. But hey, let's not let a good soundbit get away eh?
"Actually" I already knew this, nbt. But how does the addition of "only" change my point that it was EU legislation that directly led to a British shopkeeper being prosecuted?
You lot are continually misrepresenting what I say. The fact that anyone would to seek to trivialise this just proves my point - i.e. that it did matter to a supranational bureaucracy that we pursue zealotry legislation because they wanted to change it. If it didn't matter, then why change it?
FWIW I was born in '72 and was educated in metric. there are certain measurements where we still use imperial e.g. pints and miles, but my education was in metric in the textbooks with imperial measures added by the teachers. anyone who wants to go back to metric is quite frankly old and not going to be around for that much longer.
Irrelevant to the general point.
But... You mean go back to imperial? When did we go to metric measurements in pubs? You'll have to wait a long time before 18 year olds happy to buy pints of beer are old.
Sensible voices on this thread say they have no objection to either. This is a more civilised way of behaving in such matters and Steve Thoburn should have been left well alone. If his customers had started to ask for metric weighed food then maybe he'd have changed by himself.
-
Perhaps you could highlight some of this unnecessary legislation.
Perhaps you could read my earlier posts on this.
-
Perhaps you could read my earlier posts on this.
Perhaps everyone could find something better and more constructive to do than bleat away on this thread ad nauseam
-
Perhaps everyone could find something better and more constructive to do than bleat away on this thread ad nauseam
With you all the way Jimblob its now boring could it not be moved to the trashbin .
-
Perhaps everyone could find something better and more constructive to do than bleat away on this thread ad nauseam
Quite right - let's accept that Brexit Is Done. With Dominic Cummings at the helm, we're well rid of those pesky unelected European Commissioners.
-
Quite right - let's accept that Brexit Is Done.
Erm, but it’s not. Not even close.
At best there is 11 months of nonsense until the end of the transition period, after which we’ll supposedly be living in a new world order, reaping the benefits of “the easiest trade deal in history” (or whatever the quote was).
In reality it’ll probably drag on for at least another couple of years as the government have opened their negotiating position with the EU by telling them to go **** themselves.
Then, once we finally have a trade deal, or finally give up and accept we’re ****ed, we can then start adjusting to to whatever the new normal is.
Brexit was always going to be a 15-20 year project…
-
Erm, but it’s not. Not even close.
Actually my comment was an attempt at humour - I know it's not done and I know we're ****ed. At best we'll have to stick to EU rules without having a say in them, and at worst it's no deal (sorry - Australian deal). The pound will tank, prices will go up, many well paid jobs in manufacturing will go with a huge hit on tax revenue at a time when BoJo has his promised "levelling up" projects to deliver. The sad thing is the majority of people who voted for this will be most ****ed. The only winners will be the likes of BoJo, Farage, Gove etc with fortunes in offshore funds.
If anyone thinks I should accept this without feeling bitter, they can **** themselves.
-
Here we go again. Perhaps we should go back to post one and rerun 15 pages of comments again.
-
Actually my comment was an attempt at humour - I know it's not done and I know we're ****ed. At best we'll have to stick to EU rules without having a say in them, and at worst it's no deal (sorry - Australian deal). The pound will tank, prices will go up, many well paid jobs in manufacturing will go with a huge hit on tax revenue at a time when BoJo has his promised "levelling up" projects to deliver. The sad thing is the majority of people who voted for this will be most ****ed. The only winners will be the likes of BoJo, Farage, Gove etc with fortunes in offshore funds.
If anyone thinks I should accept this without feeling bitter, they can **** themselves.
You KNOW!
With such powerful insight, how come you're pitching your speculations on Marple's Community forum and not advising Boris.
-
You KNOW!
With such powerful insight, how come you're pitching your speculations on Marple's Community forum and not advising Boris.
I KNOW it will affect me, because my boss has told me so. I work for a Japanese company - used to be a U.K. company but was taken oves several years ago. I tried many times to advise Boris via his local representative Mr. Wragg. And I don't desire to re-run 15 pages of comments - just saying that in my opinion the divisions in communities which caused the Brexit vote could now be a lot worse and if so I won't forgive the people who caused it.