I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
Can't get the thing to work on my phone but yes there were some who warned about it. I did mean to insert that in the first part of my comment but carried on and forgot so my bad my omission.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
Not 'warning' about it but openly lauding the virtues of moving beyond the era of the nation state. If only Cameron could have matched some of Heath's passion and conviction.
There are no virtues to moving beyond the nation state unless you are part of the elite who want to rule without being answerable to the electorate.
And when in 2030 we vote to rejoin the EU I look forward to having all these arguments all over again in reverse.
PM George Osborne may offer that chance...
TBH if things carry on like this, we won't have stopped having the arguments in the meantime. So by 2030 we will all be longing for another referendum. On AV.
It was advisory. Parliament are duty bound to consider the advice.
You lost. Get over it. I had to get over it when Labour won in 1997, 2001, and 2005.
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't logic play a part? In fact why are there two categories---mandatory and advisory---if we do not treat them differently?
If the government formulates a detailed piece of legislation, and then puts it to the voters, then a Yes vote will be mandatory.
If the government seeks a vote on a more general principle, it will be advisory.
The resentment towards those who voted Leave by those who voted Remain is similar to the resentment felt by country folk towards those in the towns who pushed for the abolition of fox hunting despite having no knowledge of it and not being affected by it.
Though there were some very angry fox hunters it is as nothing compared to those who believe their livelihood has been put at risk. If the EU continues to prosper and the UK economy stalls there will be some very productive citizens who will pick up their bats and walk away
Yes, I know you'll want to carry on fighting the battle
I am the least of your worries. It will be the Leavers like SeanT who will the most vitriolic when Brexit crashes and burns around them
Yes, you are. I find it hilarious how you snip out any mention of your paid trolling from quotes, presumably so when your output is examined no mention of it is found. Frankly I'm surprised that you continue to be allowed to post.
The resentment towards those who voted Leave by those who voted Remain is similar to the resentment felt by country folk towards those in the towns who pushed for the abolition of fox hunting despite having no knowledge of it and not being affected by it.
Though there were some very angry fox hunters it is as nothing compared to those who believe their livelihood has been put at risk. If the EU continues to prosper and the UK economy stalls there will be some very productive citizens who will pick up their bats and walk away
What if the EU doesn't do any better than hitherto?
It was advisory. Parliament are duty bound to consider the advice.
You lost. Get over it. I had to get over it when Labour won in 1997, 2001, and 2005.
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't logic play a part? In fact why are there two categories---mandatory and advisory---if we do not treat them differently?
If the government formulates a detailed piece of legislation, and then puts it to the voters, then a Yes vote will be mandatory.
If the government seeks a vote on a more general principle, it will be advisory.
I cannot remember the exact wording of the referendum, but *leaving* the EU seems to be precisely an either/or choice, and so not general. Obviously I could never be a lawyer.
If a second referendum were to confirm Brexit, would there be demands for a third/fourth/fifth?
The EU general position is you continue to vote until they get the answer they want.
To be fair, that was also the position of many Brexiters (*), including Farage, when they thought they would lose.
(*) Though far from all.
No harm in continuing to fight for your cause. Remainers should not be disallowed to campaign to rejoin the EU.
The difference I think is though, that had we voted to Remain there would be no chance of Leavers refusing to allow us to be in the EU, as we were already in, and therefore no chance of anyone being able to claim Leavers were ignoring the result or the" will of the people".
So the likes of Farage saying he would keep on campaigning if Remain won, isn't the same as Remainers not letting us leave now, if you see what I mean. They aren't flip sides of the same coin
Makes perfect sense.
And when in 2030 we vote to rejoin the EU I look forward to having all these arguments all over again in reverse.
Would be interesting to see how a Commons with a majority of Eurosceptic MPs would react to a referendum vote that took us back into the EU. Hard to see how Osborne would be the PM in that scenario though isn't it? Although I guess it would need a pro EU PM to offer a 2nd referendum, I doubt anyone would repeat Cameron's error
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
The country is divided at every general election. It doesn't mean the winners can't implement their policy.
Indeed and neither do the opposition then get the General election rerun simply because they lost in the first one.
Well actually, the General Election does get rerun. About every 5 years.
If a second referendum were to confirm Brexit, would there be demands for a third/fourth/fifth?
The EU general position is you continue to vote until they get the answer they want.
To be fair, that was also the position of many Brexiters (*), including Farage, when they thought they would lose.
(*) Though far from all.
No harm in continuing to fight for your cause. Remainers should not be disallowed to campaign to rejoin the EU.
The difference I think is though, that had we voted to Remain there would be no chance of Leavers refusing to allow us to be in the EU, as we were already in, and therefore no chance of anyone being able to claim Leavers were ignoring the result or the" will of the people".
So the likes of Farage saying he would keep on campaigning if Remain won, isn't the same as Remainers not letting us leave now, if you see what I mean. They aren't flip sides of the same coin
Makes perfect sense.
And when in 2030 we vote to rejoin the EU I look forward to having all these arguments all over again in reverse.
Would be interesting to see how a Commons with a majority of Eurosceptic MPs would react to a referendum vote that took us back into the EU. Hard to see how Osborne would be the PM in that scenario though isn't it? Although I guess it would need a pro EU PM to offer a 2nd referendum, I doubt anyone would repeat Cameron's error
IMHO the best thing will be to allow the EU to accomplish their aim of a single, unified state, and then see whether the end result is something the UK wishes to join. Most of the friction is caused by not liking the direction of travel.
If a second referendum were to confirm Brexit, would there be demands for a third/fourth/fifth?
The EU general position is you continue to vote until they get the answer they want.
To be fair, that was also the position of many Brexiters (*), including Farage, when they thought they would lose.
(*) Though far from all.
Not quite.
Farage said they would continue to campaign to leave. That's different to trying to overturn the result of the first referendum without implementing it.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
The country is divided at every general election. It doesn't mean the winners can't implement their policy.
Indeed and neither do the opposition then get the General election rerun simply because they lost in the first one.
Well actually, the General Election does get rerun. About every 5 years.
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
Can't get the thing to work on my phone but yes there were some who warned about it. I did mean to insert that in the first part of my comment but carried on and forgot so my bad my omission.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
Not 'warning' about it but openly lauding the virtues of moving beyond the era of the nation state. If only Cameron could have matched some of Heath's passion and conviction.
There are no virtues to moving beyond the nation state unless you are part of the elite who want to rule without being answerable to the electorate.
Nonsense. Globalisation is a process that has had huge benefits for the entire world, and particularly its poorest inhabitants. Unless you want to roll back towards economic nationalism with tariffs and border checks and all of that bollocks then it's necessary to move beyond the nation state in order to exert some kind of democratic control over multinational corporations. At some point there will be a United Europe, then we'll unite with North America and so on until we end up at the inevitable world state a century or two from now.
It was advisory. Parliament are duty bound to consider the advice.
You lost. Get over it. I had to get over it when Labour won in 1997, 2001, and 2005.
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't logic play a part? In fact why are there two categories---mandatory and advisory---if we do not treat them differently?
If the government formulates a detailed piece of legislation, and then puts it to the voters, then a Yes vote will be mandatory.
If the government seeks a vote on a more general principle, it will be advisory.
I cannot remember the exact wording of the referendum, but *leaving* the EU seems to be precisely an either/or choice, and so not general. Obviously I could never be a lawyer.
"...If the government seeks a vote on a more general principle, it will be advisory."
Well, if in/out is not general then *how* it's done must be the aspect of "generality" to which you (Sean_F) refer, a strong argument for Parliament to have a hand in the Brexit details.
Farage said they would continue to campaign to leave. That's different to trying to overturn the result of the first referendum without implementing it.
No, it isn't.
if the vote had been remain, it would have been implemented, and Farage would have campaigned to overturn it.
Farage said they would continue to campaign to leave. That's different to trying to overturn the result of the first referendum without implementing it.
No, it isn't.
if the vote had been remain, it would have been implemented, and Farage would have campaigned to overturn it.
Not, presumably, without another referendum? This is very simple, you're more than welcome to campaign for us to rejoin once we've left.
In the entire history of GBPvsUSD, prior to Brexit it had only been this low for about 6 months in the 80's. If it was overvalued, then it has been overvalued for about 200 years.
No because there is a long-term trend to GBP/USD that is downwards. What is the correct value today may not be the correct value in ten, twenty or thirty years time. The fundamentals of our economy, America's economy and the world economy have all changed over the last 200 years.
Farage said they would continue to campaign to leave. That's different to trying to overturn the result of the first referendum without implementing it.
No, it isn't.
if the vote had been remain, it would have been implemented, and Farage would have campaigned to overturn it.
Not, presumably, without another referendum? This is very simple, you're more than welcome to campaign for us to rejoin once we've left.
Well Parliament is Sovereign, if at say GE 2020 a majority of MPs are elected on a manifesto to rejoin the EU, sans referendum then that negates the needs for a referendum?
Farage said they would continue to campaign to leave. That's different to trying to overturn the result of the first referendum without implementing it.
No, it isn't.
if the vote had been remain, it would have been implemented, and Farage would have campaigned to overturn it.
So now that the vote is Leave, it should be implemented, and Clegg etc can campaign to rejoin AFTER we have implemented leave.
Farage said they would continue to campaign to leave. That's different to trying to overturn the result of the first referendum without implementing it.
No, it isn't.
if the vote had been remain, it would have been implemented, and Farage would have campaigned to overturn it.
No he would have campaigned to leave *after* the result was implemented (no change). That is not the same as ignoring the result.
Once we have left the EU anyone should be free to campaign to remain if they wish.
It's weird how incredibly concerned where the podesta emails came from some of the media are, but not Panama papers and masses of other stolen information. Let's remember Panama papers led to change in leadership of a western country.
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
Can't get the thing to work on my phone but yes there were some who warned about it. I did mean to insert that in the first part of my comment but carried on and forgot so my bad my omission.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
Not 'warning' about it but openly lauding the virtues of moving beyond the era of the nation state. If only Cameron could have matched some of Heath's passion and conviction.
There are no virtues to moving beyond the nation state unless you are part of the elite who want to rule without being answerable to the electorate.
Nonsense. Globalisation is a process that has had huge benefits for the entire world, and particularly its poorest inhabitants. Unless you want to roll back towards economic nationalism with tariffs and border checks and all of that bollocks then it's necessary to move beyond the nation state in order to exert some kind of democratic control over multinational corporations. At some point there will be a United Europe, then we'll unite with North America and so on until we end up at the inevitable world state a century or two from now.
Chamberlain is a good moniker for you as you've abjectly failed to reach the right conclusion from your premise.
Yes globalisation has been good, but globalisation makes supranational organisations redundant not necessary. The EU has evolved from pre-globalisation agreements were nations traded primarily with their neighbours. In a world of the internet, next day global shipping, immediate global video conferencing, now with even non-stop flights direct from the UK to Australia ... which nations are your neighbours means less than ever before.
We need to deal with the world as it is, not the world as you wish it to be. The means moving away from sclerotic Europe and embracing the whole globe not a corner of it.
Legally bound and duty bound are different phrases with different meanings.
Indeed. Duty bound was your phrase. And Parliament are duty bound to consider the advice.
So far they have failed spectacularly in that duty.
No they are duty bound to implement the wishes of their masters.
Well, that's the fundamental thing the Supreme Court has to resolve: are the people the masters of the politicians or not? Does Parliament have intrinsic legitimacy or does it only draw its legitimacy from being the representatives of the people? If it's the former, fine - but then let's abolish referendums as if Parliament can overturn them, they are meaningless.
The resentment towards those who voted Leave by those who voted Remain is similar to the resentment felt by country folk towards those in the towns who pushed for the abolition of fox hunting despite having no knowledge of it and not being affected by it.
Though there were some very angry fox hunters it is as nothing compared to those who believe their livelihood has been put at risk. If the EU continues to prosper and the UK economy stalls there will be some very productive citizens who will pick up their bats and walk away
What if the EU doesn't do any better than hitherto?
Progressive forces always outpace the pedestrian and the conservative
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
Can't get the thing to work on my phone but yes there were some who warned about it. I did mean to insert that in the first part of my comment but carried on and forgot so my bad my omission.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
Not 'warning' about it but openly lauding the virtues of moving beyond the era of the nation state. If only Cameron could have matched some of Heath's passion and conviction.
There are no virtues to moving beyond the nation state unless you are part of the elite who want to rule without being answerable to the electorate.
Nonsense. Globalisation is a process that has had huge benefits for the entire world, and particularly its poorest inhabitants. Unless you want to roll back towards economic nationalism with tariffs and border checks and all of that bollocks then it's necessary to move beyond the nation state in order to exert some kind of democratic control over multinational corporations. At some point there will be a United Europe, then we'll unite with North America and so on until we end up at the inevitable world state a century or two from now.
Yes globalisation has been good, but globalisation makes supranational organisations redundant not necessary. The EU has evolved from pre-globalisation agreements were nations traded primarily with their neighbours. In a world of the internet, next day global shipping, immediate global video conferencing, now with even non-stop flights direct from the UK to Australia ... which nations are your neighbours means less than ever before.
That's bollocks though.
There is a reason we sell more cars to Europe than Australia, and it's not the EU.
I know the Brexiteer's want Sydney to prefer London over Shanghai, but there are obvious reasons that isn't happening
If a second referendum were to confirm Brexit, would there be demands for a third/fourth/fifth?
The EU general position is you continue to vote until they get the answer they want.
To be fair, that was also the position of many Brexiters (*), including Farage, when they thought they would lose.
(*) Though far from all.
No harm in continuing to fight for your cause. Remainers should not be disallowed to campaign to rejoin the EU.
The difference I think is though, that had we voted to Remain there would be no chance of Leavers refusing to allow us to be in the EU, as we were already in, and therefore no chance of anyone being able to claim Leavers were ignoring the result or the" will of the people".
So the likes of Farage saying he would keep on campaigning if Remain won, isn't the same as Remainers not letting us leave now, if you see what I mean. They aren't flip sides of the same coin
Makes perfect sense.
And when in 2030 we vote to rejoin the EU I look forward to having all these arguments all over again in reverse.
Would be interesting to see how a Commons with a majority of Eurosceptic MPs would react to a referendum vote that took us back into the EU. Hard to see how Osborne would be the PM in that scenario though isn't it? Although I guess it would need a pro EU PM to offer a 2nd referendum, I doubt anyone would repeat Cameron's error
IMHO the best thing will be to allow the EU to accomplish their aim of a single, unified state, and then see whether the end result is something the UK wishes to join. Most of the friction is caused by not liking the direction of travel.
Quite. "Remain" was a false status quo really. The EU will change from where it is now, and doubtless if we'd have voted "remain" it would've been taken as Carte Blanche to drag us down the quagmire of much closer union.
Still if people want to campaign ( once we've left ) to join a 21st Century Holy Roman Empire, well they can.
With respect, there have been 40-odd years in which to make not leaving work for all of us.
And we went from the sick man of Europe to the 5th largest economy on the World.
By replacing Labour with Thatcher. Nothing to do with EU membership.
It was mainly due to Mrs Thatcher finding oil in the North Sea.
Way before her time
Development / investigations started in the early / mid 1960's and the first oil / oil rig was 1970/71
"The UK Continental Shelf Act came into force in May 1964. Seismic exploration and the first well followed later that year. It and a second well on the Mid North Sea High were dry, as the Rotliegendes was absent, but BP's Sea Gem rig struck gas in the West Sole Field in September 1965."
"BP's semi-submersible drilling rig Sea Quest hit crude at 11,000 feet in the upper tertiary sandstone. Four appraisal wells drilled during 1970-71 revealed a large reservoir at a depth of about 7,000 feet. So marked the first and largest major oil field discovery in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea"
I know you lefties want to blame, smear and deride her on everything and anything you can but its just getting rather silly now bordering on pathetic
It was a light-hearted way of pointing out that Mrs Thatcher benefited hugely from North Sea Oil revenues -- of course she did not literally discover it. As you can see from HMG's table, if you compare income with the years of Mrs Thatcher's premiership.
Well, that's the fundamental thing the Supreme Court has to resolve: are the people the masters of the politicians or not? Does Parliament have intrinsic legitimacy or does it only draw its legitimacy from being the representatives of the people? If it's the former, fine - but then let's abolish referendums as if Parliament can overturn them, they are meaningless.
No
The Supreme Court are determining what actions Parliament must take to comply with the law
Farage said they would continue to campaign to leave. That's different to trying to overturn the result of the first referendum without implementing it.
No, it isn't.
if the vote had been remain, it would have been implemented, and Farage would have campaigned to overturn it.
Not, presumably, without another referendum? This is very simple, you're more than welcome to campaign for us to rejoin once we've left.
Well Parliament is Sovereign, if at say GE 2020 a majority of MPs are elected on a manifesto to rejoin the EU, sans referendum then that negates the needs for a referendum?
With respect, there have been 40-odd years in which to make not leaving work for all of us.
And we went from the sick man of Europe to the 5th largest economy on the World.
By replacing Labour with Thatcher. Nothing to do with EU membership.
It was mainly due to Mrs Thatcher finding oil in the North Sea.
Way before her time
Development / investigations started in the early / mid 1960's and the first oil / oil rig was 1970/71
"The UK Continental Shelf Act came into force in May 1964. Seismic exploration and the first well followed later that year. It and a second well on the Mid North Sea High were dry, as the Rotliegendes was absent, but BP's Sea Gem rig struck gas in the West Sole Field in September 1965."
"BP's semi-submersible drilling rig Sea Quest hit crude at 11,000 feet in the upper tertiary sandstone. Four appraisal wells drilled during 1970-71 revealed a large reservoir at a depth of about 7,000 feet. So marked the first and largest major oil field discovery in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea"
I know you lefties want to blame, smear and deride her on everything and anything you can but its just getting rather silly now bordering on pathetic
It was a light-hearted way of pointing out that Mrs Thatcher benefited hugely from North Sea Oil revenues -- of course she did not literally discover it. As you can see from HMG's table, if you compare income with the years of Mrs Thatcher's premiership.
This is one of the areas where, to be honest, the 70s Governments screwed up badly. They allowed the Oil Companies to pay off a large amount of their costs before they ever started to pay a penny to the exchequer. Over the 40 years or so this made very little difference as the Government got their cut and then some. But in the short term for Heath, Wilson and Callaghan it was a very bad deal as it meant they saw almost nothing in terms of revenue during their premierships and the money only really started flowing in the 80s.
Norway had a far better grasp on these things and made sure the Oil Companies paid from the start.
Well, that's the fundamental thing the Supreme Court has to resolve: are the people the masters of the politicians or not? Does Parliament have intrinsic legitimacy or does it only draw its legitimacy from being the representatives of the people? If it's the former, fine - but then let's abolish referendums as if Parliament can overturn them, they are meaningless.
No
The Supreme Court are determining what actions Parliament must take to comply with the law
No it is not. It is determining what actions the Government must take to comply with the law. Parliament can take what action it likes as long as it follows its own procedures properly.
Well, that's the fundamental thing the Supreme Court has to resolve: are the people the masters of the politicians or not? Does Parliament have intrinsic legitimacy or does it only draw its legitimacy from being the representatives of the people? If it's the former, fine - but then let's abolish referendums as if Parliament can overturn them, they are meaningless.
No
The Supreme Court are determining what actions Parliament must take to comply with the law
The Supreme Court are making it up as they go along.
The resentment towards those who voted Leave by those who voted Remain is similar to the resentment felt by country folk towards those in the towns who pushed for the abolition of fox hunting despite having no knowledge of it and not being affected by it.
Though there were some very angry fox hunters it is as nothing compared to those who believe their livelihood has been put at risk. If the EU continues to prosper and the UK economy stalls there will be some very productive citizens who will pick up their bats and walk away
What if the EU doesn't do any better than hitherto?
Progressive forces always outpace the pedestrian and the conservative
Which is why the very pedestrian and conservative EU is failing. It is too sclerotic to progress.
On topic, however crap jahadi jez is, labour are not going sub 20. Sub 30 sure, but too many people associate the labour brand with their own views and / or hate the Tory world view.
It was advisory. Parliament are duty bound to consider the advice.
Legally bound and duty bound are different phrases with different meanings.
I've been looking at Legal Incapacities to vote. It looks as though members of the House of Lords would not have been able to vote in the referendum; perhaps that's why so many of them want to make their opinions felt now.
I was looking at Legal Incapacities to find out how 'incapable' one has to be to be ruled unable to vote. The answer seems to be that there's been no threshold since 2006. (I was interested because I have many friends with learning disabilities, some of them very severely affected.)
No they are duty bound to implement the wishes of their masters.
You are clearly still confused about how representative democracy works
No. The people delegates authority to its representatives who then make decisions on their behalf. There are times when those representatives feel unable to make a decision and so refer the decision back to the electorate. When the answer is given they are obliged to implement it.
No it is not. It is determining what actions the Government must take to comply with the law. Parliament can take what action it likes as long as it follows its own procedures properly.
Yes globalisation has been good, but globalisation makes supranational organisations redundant not necessary. The EU has evolved from pre-globalisation agreements were nations traded primarily with their neighbours. In a world of the internet, next day global shipping, immediate global video conferencing, now with even non-stop flights direct from the UK to Australia ... which nations are your neighbours means less than ever before.
That's bollocks though.
There is a reason we sell more cars to Europe than Australia, and it's not the EU.
I know the Brexiteer's want Sydney to prefer London over Shanghai, but there are obvious reasons that isn't happening
Just because you can't comprehend a point doesn't make it wrong. I never said that geography is irrleevant, I said it makes it mean "less than ever before". If you can point to a time it meant less than now then I'll concede I was wrong.
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
Can't get the thing to work on my phone but yes there were some who warned about it. I did mean to insert that in the first part of my comment but carried on and forgot so my bad my omission.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
Not 'warning' about it but openly lauding the virtues of moving beyond the era of the nation state. If only Cameron could have matched some of Heath's passion and conviction.
There are no virtues to moving beyond the nation state unless you are part of the elite who want to rule without being answerable to the electorate.
Nonsense. Globalisation is a process that has had huge benefits for the entire world, and particularly its poorest inhabitants. Unless you want to roll back towards economic nationalism with tariffs and border checks and all of that bollocks then it's necessary to move beyond the nation state in order to exert some kind of democratic control over multinational corporations. At some point there will be a United Europe, then we'll unite with North America and so on until we end up at the inevitable world state a century or two from now.
There is a reason that large artificial amalgamations eventually fail. It is inevitable and only the time scale varies. A united Europe cannot last even if it ever gets close to existing - which I doubt. There is no virtue in remote unaccountable governance imposed upon peoples with different cultures, languages and outlooks. Your vision is a fantasy - or rather a nightmare as it will lead to inevitable conflict.
The resentment towards those who voted Leave by those who voted Remain is similar to the resentment felt by country folk towards those in the towns who pushed for the abolition of fox hunting despite having no knowledge of it and not being affected by it.
Though there were some very angry fox hunters it is as nothing compared to those who believe their livelihood has been put at risk. If the EU continues to prosper and the UK economy stalls there will be some very productive citizens who will pick up their bats and walk away
What if the EU doesn't do any better than hitherto?
Progressive forces always outpace the pedestrian and the conservative
I find it hilarious how you snip out any mention of your paid trolling
I find it hilarious you think anyone would pay for someone to post on here
619 ....now whatever happened to him?
IOS and the ground game. Can't imagine he was paid but certainly provided some considerable free entertainment before falling off a cliff on election night never to be heard of again.
Comments
If the government seeks a vote on a more general principle, it will be advisory.
Though there were some very angry fox hunters it is as nothing compared to those who believe their livelihood has been put at risk. If the EU continues to prosper and the UK economy stalls there will be some very productive citizens who will pick up their bats and walk away
Farage said they would continue to campaign to leave. That's different to trying to overturn the result of the first referendum without implementing it.
So far they have failed spectacularly in that duty.
Well, if in/out is not general then *how* it's done must be the aspect of "generality" to which you (Sean_F) refer, a strong argument for Parliament to have a hand in the Brexit details.
if the vote had been remain, it would have been implemented, and Farage would have campaigned to overturn it.
http://stooq.com/c/?s=gbpusd&c=100y&t=l&a=lg&b
Once we have left the EU anyone should be free to campaign to remain if they wish.
Yes globalisation has been good, but globalisation makes supranational organisations redundant not necessary. The EU has evolved from pre-globalisation agreements were nations traded primarily with their neighbours. In a world of the internet, next day global shipping, immediate global video conferencing, now with even non-stop flights direct from the UK to Australia ... which nations are your neighbours means less than ever before.
We need to deal with the world as it is, not the world as you wish it to be. The means moving away from sclerotic Europe and embracing the whole globe not a corner of it.
There is a reason we sell more cars to Europe than Australia, and it's not the EU.
I know the Brexiteer's want Sydney to prefer London over Shanghai, but there are obvious reasons that isn't happening
Still if people want to campaign ( once we've left ) to join a 21st Century Holy Roman Empire, well they can.
I've never laughed so hard.
The Supreme Court are determining what actions Parliament must take to comply with the law
Norway had a far better grasp on these things and made sure the Oil Companies paid from the start.
The Supreme Court are making it up as they go along.
I think I prefer the tweets and Tims version name..... Scot n' paste.
I was looking at Legal Incapacities to find out how 'incapable' one has to be to be ruled unable to vote. The answer seems to be that there's been no threshold since 2006. (I was interested because I have many friends with learning disabilities, some of them very severely affected.)
NEW THREAD