We came to a democratic decision after a three week intensive campaign. We didn't vote on a whim after a salesman came to call. We have three week campaigns before we vote on a government too.
What has happened is that Parliament refused to accept the decision and did everything it could to prevaricate and insist it had to have the final decision. Their campaigning has carried on incessantly ever since.
I'd liken it to a government refusing to accept a GE result. You're were misled, the other side cheated, and you're too thick to make a decision. The Great and the Good are doing it for your own good. We won't implement your decision, we'll wait a couple of days and then insist you've probably changed your mind.
We can argue about whose analogy is most correct, but the precedent it sets is unarguable. The voters' decision is subject to Parliamentary oversight. If we don't like it, you'll have to vote again.
Whether we Remain, Leave or Bino is less relevant. The message it would send out is the problem.
Even if we voted Leave again, the damage is done.
As I have said repeatedly (sorry) there are no good options. I think that a second referendum is a less worse option than going ahead in panic and fear and out of cowardice because we are not prepared to draw breath before making an important decision.
But your post eloquently points up the problem of trying to insert a plebiscite into a Parliamentary system. Unfortunately, we are now stuck and we may well need another plebiscite to move us forward.
If No Deal happens and is a mess, I suspect the voters will blame the politicians not themselves. I would not be surprised to hear some say: "This is not what I voted for. Why did you allow this [this being closure of a factory or cancelled ops or whatever] happen?"
I pity the politician who responds to that by saying: "Yes you did vote for that. I was simply following your instruction."
(Apparently the EU won't be reopening the Withdrawal Agreement but might do some last-minute keyhole surgery on it!)
But they are deliberately spinning out the process in line with May's "running down the clock" strategy. Which to my mind doesn't seem consistent with the idea that this offer is going to be coupled with the "threat" of an extension.
The government’s push to roll over EU trade deals from which the UK currently benefits has yielded agreements covering only £16bn of the near-£117bn of British trade with the countries involved.
Despite frenetic efforts by ministers to ensure the continuity of international trade after the UK leaves the EU on 29 March, the international trade secretary, Liam Fox, has so far only managed to secure deals with seven of the 69 countries that the UK currently trades with under preferential EU free trade agreements, which will end after Brexit.
He has also conceded freedom of movement in two of those deals.
What has happened is that Parliament refused to accept the decision and did everything it could to prevaricate and insist it had to have the final decision.
Not really.
Parliament has voted through every single Brexit measure presented to it apart from the WA, which is not required for us to leave.
So what you're suggesting is we leave without a WA?
I've voted Tory once in my life. For a local councillor a year or two ago when the only alternative was a fanatical Corbyn supporter. When you have a choice of two loons, you can only go for the least loony. I came away with a queasy feeling, but I thought it was my duty to make a decision.
If we have a second referendum where Remain is an option, I will abstain for the first time ever. I'll have finally realised there is no point to voting and I won't bother any more. I'm not a fanatic on this. My view on the EU is that it's staffed by inefficient bureaucrats who make political decisions on our behalf. Like the HoC, but with more power.
If I make that decision on something as inconsequential as the EU, I'm sure there will be many others who do too. I suspect many politicians realise that. And that's why it remains only a long shot.
I'll survive whatever we do and there are more important things in life. My wife voted Remain so we cancelled each other out. I respect her decision as she respected mine. That's real life.
Although give our camelias a few more days, and I'll astonish you! There are thousands upon thousands of buds, just waiting to burst open.
I look forward to seeing the pictures! I have three lovely camellias in the front. They too have buds. My iris and crocuses are also coming into flower, despite the squirrel's depredations. And I have a most beautiful scented winter-flowering viburnum which is in full flower next to some flowering and scented daphnes.
If I were London Mayor for a day I would encourage the greening of front gardens and wasteland spaces, not just for beauty but to encourage beneficial insects and wildlife and to help clean the air. There is no space that wouldn't be improved by a plant or two.
Well, maybe not giant hogweed!
We also have some super rhododendrons and azaleas. I'll send you some pics.....
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
Personally I'm blaming english property law.Referendums in the future should be akin to the Scottish system. Once you've chose, you've chosen.
What has happened is that Parliament refused to accept the decision and did everything it could to prevaricate and insist it had to have the final decision.
Not really.
Parliament has voted through every single Brexit measure presented to it apart from the WA, which is not required for us to leave.
It is, if Parliament is hellbent on refusing to to allow us to leave without one!
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
Let’s try an analogy related to your old job
1. Your regulator is increasingly disatisfied with the industry approach to something 2. The industry asks for instruction but lobbies for a preferred option on the grounds that the alternative is too hard and too expensive 3. The regulators consider your submission but decide to instruct you to change current practice 4. Instead of diligently working to implement this half the industry whines and throws its toys around and tries their best (with some success) to frustrate the changes their competitors are trying to implement. Their competitors meanwhile are doing a half arsed job 5. After 2 years you haven’t implemented the changes required and are coming up against the deadline set
Do you think that because you haven’t followed instructions the regulator should go easy on you? Or should they hit you with a heavy fine and a prison sentence?
A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
£21.4mn on construction contracts. Bet those contractors were laughing all the way to the bank.
Gross profit lost on £140million workload, plus sunk costs for the preparation cancelled at the last minute. Pretty much standard for pulling the plug after agreeing a tender.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
Let’s try an analogy related to your old job
1. Your regulator is increasingly disatisfied with the industry approach to something 2. The industry asks for instruction but lobbies for a preferred option on the grounds that the alternative is too hard and too expensive 3. The regulators consider your submission but decide to instruct you to change current practice 4. Instead of diligently working to implement this half the industry whines and throws its toys around and tries their best (with some success) to frustrate the changes their competitors are trying to implement. Their competitors meanwhile are doing a half arsed job 5. After 2 years you haven’t implemented the changes required and are coming up against the deadline set
Do you think that because you haven’t followed instructions the regulator should go easy on you? Or should they hit you with a heavy fine and a prison sentence?
This happens literally all the time in my industry (insurance), and invariably implementation gets delayed, often multiple times. Some recent examples: IFRS17, Solvency II, IDD, ...
I believe Basel II was also delayed multiple times. I'm not sure what lessons to draw from all this.
A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
£21.4mn on construction contracts. Bet those contractors were laughing all the way to the bank.
Gross profit lost on £140million workload, plus sunk costs for the preparation cancelled at the last minute. Pretty much standard for pulling the plug after agreeing a tender.
The contract costings for the contracters will be amazing. They'll be "overbilled" to the hilt with the early deposit payments coming in I'm guessing - great income and just the drawing office time as cost at ~£60/hour or whatever they're paying their draftsmen + overhead.
A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
You can spend any amount of money on anything, if you're not spending your own money and don't care about the expense.
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.
Although give our camelias a few more days, and I'll astonish you! There are thousands upon thousands of buds, just waiting to burst open.
I look forward to seeing the pictures! I have three lovely camellias in the front. They too have buds. My iris and crocuses are also coming into flower, despite the squirrel's depredations. And I have a most beautiful scented winter-flowering viburnum which is in full flower next to some flowering and scented daphnes.
If I were London Mayor for a day I would encourage the greening of front gardens and wasteland spaces, not just for beauty but to encourage beneficial insects and wildlife and to help clean the air. There is no space that wouldn't be improved by a plant or two.
Well, maybe not giant hogweed!
We also have some super rhododendrons and azaleas. I'll send you some pics.....
Lovely. Muncaster Castle has some gorgeous rhododendrons too.
Giant hogweed in Parliament would probably be an improvement....
Although give our camelias a few more days, and I'll astonish you! There are thousands upon thousands of buds, just waiting to burst open.
I look forward to seeing the pictures! I have three lovely camellias in the front. They too have buds. My iris and crocuses are also coming into flower, despite the squirrel's depredations. And I have a most beautiful scented winter-flowering viburnum which is in full flower next to some flowering and scented daphnes.
If I were London Mayor for a day I would encourage the greening of front gardens and wasteland spaces, not just for beauty but to encourage beneficial insects and wildlife and to help clean the air. There is no space that wouldn't be improved by a plant or two.
Well, maybe not giant hogweed!
We also have some super rhododendrons and azaleas. I'll send you some pics.....
Lovely. Muncaster Castle has some gorgeous rhododendrons too.
Giant hogweed in Parliament would probably be an improvement....
Our garden is carpeted with crocuses, and in a few weeks, they'll be replaced by primroses.
How many UK passport holders seek to apply annually, has this changed and what is the direction of travel?
You can't just have cut and pasted this this without thinking about consequences. Only a moron would do that. So this must create a problem, correct?
The figures that I can find have 43,000 British nationals resident in Switzerland at the end of 2017. That's just under twenty and a half years of the annual quota of long-term residence permits, assuming that none of those people return to the UK after moving to Switzerland.
So it could be a decrease in the numbers of Britons that can move to Switzerland if the average residence time is below twenty years, or no effect if the average residence time is greater.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
Mark Francois another ERG nutjob now whining because the government motion isn’t to his liking .
This non entity continues to pollute our screens with his delusional rantings and is just another of the loathsome pond scum which inhabits the Brexit Death Cult of the ERG.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
Let’s try an analogy related to your old job
1. Your regulator is increasingly disatisfied with the industry approach to something 2. The industry asks for instruction but lobbies for a preferred option on the grounds that the alternative is too hard and too expensive 3. The regulators consider your submission but decide to instruct you to change current practice 4. Instead of diligently working to implement this half the industry whines and throws its toys around and tries their best (with some success) to frustrate the changes their competitors are trying to implement. Their competitors meanwhile are doing a half arsed job 5. After 2 years you haven’t implemented the changes required and are coming up against the deadline set
Do you think that because you haven’t followed instructions the regulator should go easy on you? Or should they hit you with a heavy fine and a prison sentence?
The analogy doesn't really work, does it?
The instructions are being followed and the change required will happen on a date - let us pick one out of the air, 29 March. But you have pointed out that there are a number of unintended consequences of the changes, insufficient staff to implement them etc and you are suggesting that it might be worth pausing the process to review the proposal so that it doesn't lead to a mess.
Failing to implement a regulatory change is, in my experience, vanishingly unlikely to result in a heavy fine - certainly not immediately - let alone a prison sentence.
Or take a specific example I was involved in a few years back - regarding taping of mobile phones. The regulator had made changes to the rules on taping of landlines. It then proposed to introduce taping of mobile phones in a short time frame and despite it being abundantly clear that there was no effective method of doing this within the time frame required. If it had gone ahead, it would have been a mess. The regulator pulled back, thought again and eventually, after proper consultation, review, consideration and other changes a different proposal was implemented which dealt with the mischief everyone was concerned about.
Struggling to see why Grayling need resign over Seaborne, or why Mike thinks Corbyn played a blinder at PMQs. At least the DfT has been making some real contingency plans here to protect us in the event of the worst case outcome. They ran an abridged procurement process (the Eurotunnel challenge will tell us whether it passed muster, but prima facie I am minded to back to Govt on that), awarded a contract and then found the contracting party couldnt deliver on what it promised. So they terminated.
Had they been determined to let Seaborne carry on in the face of the obvious "no ships" issue, then that would have been a different, and resigning, matter.
Of course, I am a lawyer not a politician. It may be that, politically, Corbyn does have Grayling on the ropes over this, however harsh that may be.
If still available 9/1 for Chris Grayling to be next minister out is value. I am going to do it but it will be a bet I'll be delighted to lose. If I were the PM I would certainly not sack him. I think the guy gets way too much stick. He has become an all too easy target for lazy bullying abuse. Not clever and not nice. He has such a pleasant kind face too, you can tell the sort of well meaning chap he is just by looking at it. You can also, if you look hard enough, detect the hurt in the eyes from all the insults he has no choice but to hear. It touches me, and I'm sure others too. I hear that Jeremy Corbyn had a 'great PMQs' today where he ruthlessly targeted everybody's favourite whipping boy - surprise surprise Grayling - with some choice cutting remarks. Well good for you, Jeremy, I guess you have to, but I for one am glad I didn't see it and I will not be watching the highlights.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
I do find it amusing that you have never noticed that I have only ever abused you as a response to your own abuse. Clearly you are too dumb to realise your own hypocrisy.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
Let’s try an analogy related to your old job
1. Your regulator is increasingly disatisfied with the industry approach to something 2. The industry asks for instruction but lobbies for a preferred option on the grounds that the alternative is too hard and too expensive 3. The regulators consider your submission but decide to instruct you to change current practice 4. Instead of diligently working to implement this half the industry whines and throws its toys around and tries their best (with some success) to frustrate the changes their competitors are trying to implement. Their competitors meanwhile are doing a half arsed job 5. After 2 years you haven’t implemented the changes required and are coming up against the deadline set
Do you think that because you haven’t followed instructions the regulator should go easy on you? Or should they hit you with a heavy fine and a prison sentence?
The analogy doesn't really work, does it?
The instructions are being followed and the change required will happen on a date - let us pick one out of the air, 29 March. But you have pointed out that there are a number of unintended consequences of the changes, insufficient staff to implement them etc and you are suggesting that it might be worth pausing the process to review the proposal so that it doesn't lead to a mess.
Failing to implement a regulatory change is, in my experience, vanishingly unlikely to result in a heavy fine - certainly not immediately - let alone a prison sentence.
Or take a specific example I was involved in a few years back - regarding taping of mobile phones. The regulator had made changes to the rules on taping of landlines. It then proposed to introduce taping of mobile phones in a short time frame and despite it being abundantly clear that there was no effective method of doing this within the time frame required. If it had gone ahead, it would have been a mess. The regulator pulled back, thought again and eventually, after proper consultation, review, consideration and other changes a different proposal was implemented which dealt with the mischief everyone was concerned about.
Not what you are suggesting
You are going back to the regulator and saying we didn’t do it because it’s a crap idea like we told you.
If you were proposing a delay then it would be arguable (actually that’s what the deal is - a transition).
A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
You can spend any amount of money on anything, if you're not spending your own money and don't care about the expense.
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.
Even more extraordinary is that the largest part of the £53m went on construction contracts - despite the fact that nothing was actually constructed.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
I do find it amusing that you have never noticed that I have only ever abused you as a response to your own abuse. Clearly you are too dumb to realise your own hypocrisy.
Sorry, but anyone who votes UKIP/BNP is in no position to call anyone dumb, and your statement is also a lie; you are continually abusing anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudiced view of the world.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
Leave 52% Remain 48%
Yawn. Perhaps if those who had "won" the pyrrhic victory that is Brexit had shown a little more humility in "victory" we wouldn't be where we are now.
A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
You can spend any amount of money on anything, if you're not spending your own money and don't care about the expense.
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.
Even more extraordinary is that the largest part of the £53m went on construction contracts - despite the fact that nothing was actually constructed.
Drawings will have been needed - https://www.autodesk.com/products/civil-3d/overview of course with zero materials bought, and presumably plenty of the profit retained (Hey it wasn't the contractors that pulled out) the margins will be absolubtely eye watering.
Try not to tease the Remain voters, some of them have a low flashpoint.
There's an art to losing graciously - most of them have it, but not all. I played a lot of rugby in my youth and we learned to lose well.
But we often had a loon in our ranks (usually one of the backs) and after one match one of the other side came up and complained about being punched. "Don't take it personally," I said. "He does it to every opponent. He can't help himself."
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
Leave 52% Remain 48%
Yawn. Perhaps if those who had "won" the pyrrhic victory that is Brexit had shown a little more humility in "victory" we wouldn't be where we are now.
... or even had a clue what they wanted to do with it.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
More like forcing a couple to stay married because the lawyers screwed up the paperwork....
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
Leave 52% Remain 48%
Yawn. Perhaps if those who had "won" the pyrrhic victory that is Brexit had shown a little more humility in "victory" we wouldn't be where we are now.
They object to the House reiterating its support for the approach expressed by the House a fortnight ago?
Yes, that should send a useful message to the world about doing business with Britain.
Will there be another exciting day of speeches and votes, a statement from the Prime Minister, and the slowly dawning realisation that nothing has changed and we are a day nearer the end of March?
Failing to implement a regulatory change is, in my experience, vanishingly unlikely to result in a heavy fine - certainly not immediately - let alone a prison sentence.
Or take a specific example I was involved in a few years back - regarding taping of mobile phones. The regulator had made changes to the rules on taping of landlines. It then proposed to introduce taping of mobile phones in a short time frame and despite it being abundantly clear that there was no effective method of doing this within the time frame required. If it had gone ahead, it would have been a mess. The regulator pulled back, thought again and eventually, after proper consultation, review, consideration and other changes a different proposal was implemented which dealt with the mischief everyone was concerned about.
Not what you are suggesting
You are going back to the regulator and saying we didn’t do it because it’s a crap idea like we told you.
If you were proposing a delay then it would be arguable (actually that’s what the deal is - a transition).
Actually, I have quite often told the regulator that I have done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
And lived to tell the tale.
But no - a referendum puts the proposed WA before the people and asks them if they want to go ahead on this basis or do they want to stay on the existing basis. If people vote to go ahead, fine. If they vote to remain, also fine.
I don't understand why people who voted Leave and still think this is the right thing to do are so against doing this. All in favour of the people in theory but not in favour of the people voting on the actual deal as opposed to the promises made. Now call me cynical but I do wonder why that might be.
Or as I put it recently in a header - "Would it be unkind to suggest that there is a touch of fear in those who argue so fervently in favour of implementing one vote and equally fervently against asking the people to confirm that decision? A fear that perhaps the people might not do this, might not have been impressed by how their representatives have behaved, a fear that the Brexiteers’ vision might be found wanting. It would certainly not be unkind to suggest that many of those most in favour of a People’s Vote now were much less keen on the People voting once the result of the first vote came out."
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
I do find it amusing that you have never noticed that I have only ever abused you as a response to your own abuse. Clearly you are too dumb to realise your own hypocrisy.
Sorry, but anyone who votes UKIP/BNP is in no position to call anyone dumb, and your statement is also a lie; you are continually abusing anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudiced view of the world.
But you are dumb. All my statements are easily checked and my view of Brexit is by far one of the most moderate of all those who supported it. It is even more moderate than some of those who voted Remain. I have written threads on here about exactly why we should have gone for a soft Brexit and when it comes to immigration my position has consistently been far more liberal than any other single persons on here. If course all this is meaningless as far as you are concerned because you think anyone advocating Brexit is a thick racist. Where in the end says far more about your own bigoted personality than it does about any Leave supporter.
Basically you are just too stupid to be able to make a reasoned contribution to any debate.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
Leave 52% Remain 48%
Yawn. Perhaps if those who had "won" the pyrrhic victory that is Brexit had shown a little more humility in "victory" we wouldn't be where we are now.
You mean if those who won hadn't actually celebrated their triumph over all the garbage that Remain threw at them? And I love that comment about people that voted to leave. Really shows tolerance. I look forward to seeing reports of similar comments made by Brexiteers about Remainers.
So how much is inflation falling faster than expected together with wages rising faster than expected boosting Conservative poll ratings ?
While some people are struggling there are also a lot of people doing very nicely.
Isn't inflation falling because of lack of demand in the economy?
Mike Hardie, ONS head of inflation, said: "The fall in inflation is due mainly to cheaper gas, electricity and petrol, partly offset by rising ferry ticket prices and air fares falling more slowly than this time last year."
Failing to implement a regulatory change is, in my experience, vanishingly unlikely to result in a heavy fine - certainly not immediately - let alone a prison sentence.
Or take a specific example I was involved in a few years back - regarding taping of mobile phones. The regulator had made changes to the rules on taping of landlines. It then proposed to introduce taping of mobile phones in a short time frame and despite it being abundantly clear that there was no effective method of doing this within the time frame required. If it had gone ahead, it would have been a mess. The regulator pulled back, thought again and eventually, after proper consultation, review, consideration and other changes a different proposal was implemented which dealt with the mischief everyone was concerned about.
Not what you are suggesting
You are going back to the regulator and saying we didn’t do it because it’s a crap idea like we told you.
If you were proposing a delay then it would be arguable (actually that’s what the deal is - a transition).
Actually, I have quite often told the regulator that I have done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
And lived to tell the tale.
What I meant was " I have quite often told the regulator that I have NOT done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Failing to implement a regulatory change is, in my experience, vanishingly unlikely to result in a heavy fine - certainly not immediately - let alone a prison sentence.
Or take a specific example I was involved in a few years back - regarding taping of mobile phones. The regulator had made changes to the rules on taping of landlines. It then proposed to introduce taping of mobile phones in a short time frame and despite it being abundantly clear that there was no effective method of doing this within the time frame required. If it had gone ahead, it would have been a mess. The regulator pulled back, thought again and eventually, after proper consultation, review, consideration and other changes a different proposal was implemented which dealt with the mischief everyone was concerned about.
Not what you are suggesting
You are going back to the regulator and saying we didn’t do it because it’s a crap idea like we told you.
If you were proposing a delay then it would be arguable (actually that’s what the deal is - a transition).
Actually, I have quite often told the regulator that I have done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
And lived to tell the tale.
What I meant was " I have quite often told the regulator that I have NOT done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
So how much is inflation falling faster than expected together with wages rising faster than expected boosting Conservative poll ratings ?
While some people are struggling there are also a lot of people doing very nicely.
Isn't inflation falling because of lack of demand in the economy?
Mike Hardie, ONS head of inflation, said: "The fall in inflation is due mainly to cheaper gas, electricity and petrol, partly offset by rising ferry ticket prices and air fares falling more slowly than this time last year."
Failing to implement a regulatory change is, in my experience, vanishingly unlikely to result in a heavy fine - certainly not immediately - let alone a prison sentence.
Or take a specific example I was involved in a few years back - regarding taping of mobile phones. The regulator had made changes to the rules on taping of landlines. It then proposed to introduce taping of mobile phones in a short time frame and despite it being abundantly clear that there was no effective method of doing this within the time frame required. If it had gone ahead, it would have been a mess. The regulator pulled back, thought again and eventually, after proper consultation, review, consideration and other changes a different proposal was implemented which dealt with the mischief everyone was concerned about.
Not what you are suggesting
You are going back to the regulator and saying we didn’t do it because it’s a crap idea like we told you.
If you were proposing a delay then it would be arguable (actually that’s what the deal is - a transition).
Actually, I have quite often told the regulator that I have done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
And lived to tell the tale.
What I meant was " I have quite often told the regulator that I have NOT done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
And lived to tell the tale. "
And done something crap because they asked ?
No - I refused to do crap things whether or not the regulator asked.
Failing to implement a regulatory change is, in my experience, vanishingly unlikely to result in a heavy fine - certainly not immediately - let alone a prison sentence.
Or take a specific example I was involved in a few years back - regarding taping of mobile phones. The regulator had made changes to the rules on taping of landlines. It then proposed to introduce taping of mobile phones in a short time frame and despite it being abundantly clear that there was no effective method of doing this within the time frame required. If it had gone ahead, it would have been a mess. The regulator pulled back, thought again and eventually, after proper consultation, review, consideration and other changes a different proposal was implemented which dealt with the mischief everyone was concerned about.
Not what you are suggesting
You are going back to the regulator and saying we didn’t do it because it’s a crap idea like we told you.
If you were proposing a delay then it would be arguable (actually that’s what the deal is - a transition).
Actually, I have quite often told the regulator that I have done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
And lived to tell the tale.
What I meant was " I have quite often told the regulator that I have NOT done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
And lived to tell the tale. "
And done something crap because they asked ?
No - I refused to do crap things whether or not the regulator asked.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
When the decision to get divorced is carried by 52% - that's kinda terminal!
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
What the fuck would you know about the IRA?
Charming, aren't you?
My point is that remainers seem to think one vote to remain in the EU settles the matter forever, but so long as people vote leave the question can be put to them year after year after year.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
I do find it amusing that you have never noticed that I have only ever abused you as a response to your own abuse. Clearly you are too dumb to realise your own hypocrisy.
Sorry, but anyone who votes UKIP/BNP is in no position to call anyone dumb, and your statement is also a lie; you are continually abusing anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudiced view of the world.
But you are dumb. All my statements are easily checked and my view of Brexit is by far one of the most moderate of all those who supported it. It is even more moderate than some of those who voted Remain. I have written threads on here about exactly why we should have gone for a soft Brexit and when it comes to immigration my position has consistently been far more liberal than any other single persons on here. If course all this is meaningless as far as you are concerned because you think anyone advocating Brexit is a thick racist. Where in the end says far more about your own bigoted personality than it does about any Leave supporter.
Basically you are just too stupid to be able to make a reasoned contribution to any debate.
Don't beat about the bush. Tell us what you really think.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
That analogy is rather damaged by the suggestion made by many on a second referendum of writing the outcome into law (a confirmatory referendum rather than advisory, as per the AV referendum) that the outcome (Revoke or Withdrawal Agreement) is done. At that point, whichever it is, is enacted.
So, the analogy would be: what if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, asked "are you sure" one more time.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
That analogy is rather damaged by the suggestion made by many on a second referendum of writing the outcome into law (a confirmatory referendum rather than advisory, as per the AV referendum) that the outcome (Revoke or Withdrawal Agreement) is done. At that point, whichever it is, is enacted.
So, the analogy would be: what if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, asked "are you sure" one more time.
I think the correct analogy here is Mrs Doyle asking if we want a cup of tea.
Only remain is the cup of tea, and remainers are Mrs Doyle, who will keep on asking "go on, go on, go on" until we eventually snap and accept just to hear the end of it.
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like Sunnil who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
What the fuck would you know about the IRA?
Charming, aren't you?
My point is that remainers seem to think one vote to remain in the EU settles the matter forever, but so long as people vote leave the question can be put to them year after year after year.
True. And it works the other way around as well. We might get out for a while, but it only takes a winning party to have put rejoining in its manifesto and we are back in.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
1. Abolishing cooling off periods for important financial and other contracts. 2. Abolishing divorce. 3. Never getting back together with someone you parted from even if you both want to because, you know, you made that decision once and you can't revisit it. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
an always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
I do find it amusing that you have never noticed that I have only ever abused you as a response to your own abuse. Clearly you are too dumb to realise your own hypocrisy.
Sorry, but anyone who votes UKIP/BNP is in no position to call anyone dumb, and your statement is also a lie; you are continually abusing anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudiced view of the world.
But you are dumb. All my statements are easily checked and my view of Brexit is by far one of the most moderate of all those who supported it. It is even more moderate than some of those who voted Remain. I have written threads on here about exactly why we should have gone for a soft Brexit and when it comes to immigration my position has consistently been far more liberal than any other single persons on here. If course all this is meaningless as far as you are concerned because you think anyone advocating Brexit is a thick racist. Where in the end says far more about your own bigoted personality than it does about any Leave supporter.
Basically you are just too stupid to be able to make a reasoned contribution to any debate.
Don't beat about the bush. Tell us what you really think.
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
. 4. Flying to a country which has been declared unsafe by the FO because you made the decision to go there, have bought the tickets and travel insurance is for cissies.
Maybe - if there were a 2nd referendum - Leave might win again. But the insistence that this cannot possibly be tested, no sirree, absolutely not, it is the start of totalitarianism, the death of democracy and all civilised life, etc etc does smack a teensy weensy bit of protesting a bit too much.
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
Logic generally is on our side. Prejudice, hatred and bloody minded stupidity we will leave to your lot of crazed lunatics. Cue predictable abuse from Mr Tyndall.....
I do find it amusing that you have never noticed that I have only ever abused you as a response to your own abuse. Clearly you are too dumb to realise your own hypocrisy.
Sorry, but anyone who votes UKIP/BNP is in no position to call anyone dumb, and your statement is also a lie; you are continually abusing anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudiced view of the world.
But you are dumb. All my statements are easily checked and my view of Brexit is by far one of the most moderate of all those who supported it. It is even more moderate than some of those who voted Remain. I have written threads on here about exactly why we should have gone for a soft Brexit and when it comes to immigration my position has consistently been far more liberal than any other single persons on here. If course all this is meaningless as far as you are concerned because you think anyone advocating Brexit is a thick racist. Where in the end says far more about your own bigoted personality than it does about any Leave supporter.
Basically you are just too stupid to be able to make a reasoned contribution to any debate.
Don't beat about the bush. Tell us what you really think.
LOL. Thank you for bringing a bit of welcome levity to the debate.
If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
. 4. Flying to a country which has been
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
I do find it amusing that you have never noticed that I have only ever abused you as a response to your own abuse. Clearly you are too dumb to realise your own hypocrisy.
Sorry, but anyone who votes UKIP/BNP is in no position to call anyone dumb, and your statement is also a lie; you are continually abusing anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudiced view of the world.
But you are dumb. All my statements are easily checked and my view of Brexit is by far one of the most moderate of all those who supported it. It is even more moderate than some of those who voted Remain. I have written threads on here about exactly why we should have gone for a soft Brexit and when it comes to immigration my position has consistently been far more liberal than any other single persons on here. If course all this is meaningless as far as you are concerned because you think anyone advocating Brexit is a thick racist. Where in the end says far more about your own bigoted personality than it does about any Leave supporter.
Basically you are just too stupid to be able to make a reasoned contribution to any debate.
Don't beat about the bush. Tell us what you really think.
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
It's an original viewpoint. It's entertaining to read and is a good challenge to one's own beliefs. It usually ends up reinforcing mine, but a challenge is always good.
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like SUNIL who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
Good thing I'm not a physicist, eh?
BTW I have been to CERN, as a tourist, back in 2014.
Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on the previous thread about why, having once made a decision, it is imperative to go through with it even though you might have changed your mind and circumstances have changed.
I am sure that all those Leavers who think like that are also in favour of:-
. 4. Flying to a country which has been
Is is possible that there might be just a smidgen of fear that the people might indeed have changed their mind and that the reality of the Leavers' grand offering might be found wanting?
And just how many chances do remain get?
As many as they need until they win. That is Remainer logic.
I do find it amusing that you have never noticed that I have only ever abused you as a response to your own abuse. Clearly you are too dumb to realise your own hypocrisy.
Sorry, but anyone who votes UKIP/BNP is in no position to call anyone dumb, and your statement is also a lie; you are continually abusing anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudiced view of the world.
But you are dumb. All my statements are easily checked and my view of Brexit is by far one of the most moderate of all those who supported it. It is even more moderate than some of those who voted Remain. I have written threads on here about exactly why we should have gone for a soft Brexit and when it comes to immigration my position has consistently been far more liberal than any other single persons on here. If course all this is meaningless as far as you are concerned because you think anyone advocating Brexit is a thick racist. Where in the end says far more about your own bigoted personality than it does about any Leave supporter.
Basically you are just too stupid to be able to make a reasoned contribution to any debate.
Don't beat about the bush. Tell us what you really think.
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
It's an original viewpoint. It's entertaining to read and is a good challenge to one's own beliefs. It usually ends up reinforcing mine, but a challenge is always good.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
That analogy is rather damaged by the suggestion made by many on a second referendum of writing the outcome into law (a confirmatory referendum rather than advisory, as per the AV referendum) that the outcome (Revoke or Withdrawal Agreement) is done. At that point, whichever it is, is enacted.
So, the analogy would be: what if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, asked "are you sure" one more time.
I think the correct analogy here is Mrs Doyle asking if we want a cup of tea.
Only remain is the cup of tea, and remainers are Mrs Doyle, who will keep on asking "go on, go on, go on" until we eventually snap and accept just to hear the end of it.
In that case the Leavers are presumably Father Jack.
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like Sunnil who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
How very dare they?
Don't they realise that if it wasn't for us they'd all be speaking German now?
If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
That analogy is rather damaged by the suggestion made by many on a second referendum of writing the outcome into law (a confirmatory referendum rather than advisory, as per the AV referendum) that the outcome (Revoke or Withdrawal Agreement) is done. At that point, whichever it is, is enacted.
So, the analogy would be: what if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, asked "are you sure" one more time.
I think the correct analogy here is Mrs Doyle asking if we want a cup of tea.
Only remain is the cup of tea, and remainers are Mrs Doyle, who will keep on asking "go on, go on, go on" until we eventually snap and accept just to hear the end of it.
In that case the Leavers are presumably Father Jack.
After re-unification, we can always call it "Craggy Ireland"
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
What the fuck would you know about the IRA?
Charming, aren't you?
My point is that remainers seem to think one vote to remain in the EU settles the matter forever, but so long as people vote leave the question can be put to them year after year after year.
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like SUNIL who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
Good thing I'm not a physicist, eh?
BTW I have been to CERN, as a tourist, back in 2014.
They can't only have physicists there surely? There must be some work for other disciplines.
Politicians are currently part of the problem not the solution.
The majority of the public understand that you’re not going to get everything you want but would probably be happy to get 80%.
But they’ve been told by the ERG nutjobs that only a Pure Brexit is acceptable . Equally on the other side the People’s Vote are wasting time and effort flogging a dead horse .
I say this as an ardent Remainer . People need to accept the battles they have a chance of winning and not continue waging a battle that has already been lost .
Efforts should have been aimed at getting a softer Brexit not no Brexit. The EU at this point just want to move on . They don’t want to be used as a continual scapegoat for the UKs problems and don’t want to have to put up with years more of the Tory psychodrama over the EU .
Unfortunately the Commons has descended into open warfare with each faction willing to burn the whole house down to get what they want .
The people who will suffer is the average voter who will end up as collateral damage .
If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.
Apparently Remainers are now like the IRA according to some on here.
Really, take a good look at yourselves if you really think that a sensible statement.
And try, too, to distinguish between a referendum which asks the question "Do you want to leave or Remain in the EU" and a question which asks "Do you want to leave the EU on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement agreed between the EU and the British government on "x" date or Remain in the EU?
They are not the same question.
If I now prefer Remain - and my view on the original question was much more 50/50 than it seems to have been for many on here - it is because of the behaviour of Leavers and those who have embraced the cause (yes, I mean you, Mrs M) in the time since the referendum.
You promised us the easiest deal in history. Now you think the only possible true Brexit is for us to have no deal at all and hang the consequences.
Do you think if you'd been frank about that and about what it meant - as we are now learning (body bags, medicines being stockpiled etc) - you'd have won the referendum? And if you do, why are you so scared of confirming that?
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards. If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards. But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
What the fuck would you know about the IRA?
Charming, aren't you?
My point is that remainers seem to think one vote to remain in the EU settles the matter forever, but so long as people vote leave the question can be put to them year after year after year.
True. And it works the other way around as well. We might get out for a while, but it only takes a winning party to have put rejoining in its manifesto and we are back in.
I think that the terms of readmission to the EU would be interesting. Once 'remainers' actually find out how much it would cost to rejoin the EU (no rebate of course, a commitment to joining the Euro) then they would say 'thanks but no thanks'.
And of course Remainers would fully cost this and present it in front of the British Populace - wouldn't they?
You can imagine the buses.
"Let's starve the NHS of £400 million a week and fund our EU membership Instead"
If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.
Comments
As I have said repeatedly (sorry) there are no good options. I think that a second referendum is a less worse option than going ahead in panic and fear and out of cowardice because we are not prepared to draw breath before making an important decision.
But your post eloquently points up the problem of trying to insert a plebiscite into a Parliamentary system. Unfortunately, we are now stuck and we may well need another plebiscite to move us forward.
If No Deal happens and is a mess, I suspect the voters will blame the politicians not themselves. I would not be surprised to hear some say: "This is not what I voted for. Why did you allow this [this being closure of a factory or cancelled ops or whatever] happen?"
I pity the politician who responds to that by saying: "Yes you did vote for that. I was simply following your instruction."
Maybe I'll be proved wrong. Not long to find out.
I've voted Tory once in my life. For a local councillor a year or two ago when the only alternative was a fanatical Corbyn supporter. When you have a choice of two loons, you can only go for the least loony. I came away with a queasy feeling, but I thought it was my duty to make a decision.
If we have a second referendum where Remain is an option, I will abstain for the first time ever. I'll have finally realised there is no point to voting and I won't bother any more. I'm not a fanatic on this. My view on the EU is that it's staffed by inefficient bureaucrats who make political decisions on our behalf. Like the HoC, but with more power.
If I make that decision on something as inconsequential as the EU, I'm sure there will be many others who do too. I suspect many politicians realise that. And that's why it remains only a long shot.
I'll survive whatever we do and there are more important things in life. My wife voted Remain so we cancelled each other out. I respect her decision as she respected mine. That's real life.
I am merely refuting the suggestion that Parliament has prevented us leaving.
We also have some super rhododendrons and azaleas. I'll send you some pics.....
1. Your regulator is increasingly disatisfied with the industry approach to something
2. The industry asks for instruction but lobbies for a preferred option on the grounds that the alternative is too hard and too expensive
3. The regulators consider your submission but decide to instruct you to change current practice
4. Instead of diligently working to implement this half the industry whines and throws its toys around and tries their best (with some success) to frustrate the changes their competitors are trying to implement. Their competitors meanwhile are doing a half arsed job
5. After 2 years you haven’t implemented the changes required and are coming up against the deadline set
Do you think that because you haven’t followed instructions the regulator should go easy on you? Or should they hit you with a heavy fine and a prison sentence?
You can't just have cut and pasted this this without thinking about consequences. Only a moron would do that. So this must create a problem, correct?
I believe Basel II was also delayed multiple times. I'm not sure what lessons to draw from all this.
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.
Giant hogweed in Parliament would probably be an improvement....
Google it
So it could be a decrease in the numbers of Britons that can move to Switzerland if the average residence time is below twenty years, or no effect if the average residence time is greater.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
This non entity continues to pollute our screens with his delusional rantings and is just another of the loathsome pond scum which inhabits the Brexit Death Cult of the ERG.
The instructions are being followed and the change required will happen on a date - let us pick one out of the air, 29 March. But you have pointed out that there are a number of unintended consequences of the changes, insufficient staff to implement them etc and you are suggesting that it might be worth pausing the process to review the proposal so that it doesn't lead to a mess.
Failing to implement a regulatory change is, in my experience, vanishingly unlikely to result in a heavy fine - certainly not immediately - let alone a prison sentence.
Or take a specific example I was involved in a few years back - regarding taping of mobile phones. The regulator had made changes to the rules on taping of landlines. It then proposed to introduce taping of mobile phones in a short time frame and despite it being abundantly clear that there was no effective method of doing this within the time frame required. If it had gone ahead, it would have been a mess. The regulator pulled back, thought again and eventually, after proper consultation, review, consideration and other changes a different proposal was implemented which dealt with the mischief everyone was concerned about.
Remain 48%
You are going back to the regulator and saying we didn’t do it because it’s a crap idea like we told you.
If you were proposing a delay then it would be arguable (actually that’s what the deal is - a transition).
Try not to tease the Remain voters, some of them have a low flashpoint.
There's an art to losing graciously - most of them have it, but not all. I played a lot of rugby in my youth and we learned to lose well.
But we often had a loon in our ranks (usually one of the backs) and after one match one of the other side came up and complained about being punched. "Don't take it personally," I said. "He does it to every opponent. He can't help himself."
Retaliation only makes things worse.
Yes, that should send a useful message to the world about doing business with Britain.
That will always end well. I don't think.
Just above pb's photo of, well ...
Remain 16,141,241
And the root and leaves make a nourishing broth.
It is difficult to grow from seed, but I noticed it growing wild and in abundance in the gardens of St Johns College, Oxford, and helped myself.
And lived to tell the tale.
But no - a referendum puts the proposed WA before the people and asks them if they want to go ahead on this basis or do they want to stay on the existing basis. If people vote to go ahead, fine. If they vote to remain, also fine.
I don't understand why people who voted Leave and still think this is the right thing to do are so against doing this. All in favour of the people in theory but not in favour of the people voting on the actual deal as opposed to the promises made. Now call me cynical but I do wonder why that might be.
Or as I put it recently in a header - "Would it be unkind to suggest that there is a touch of fear in those who argue so fervently in favour of implementing one vote and equally fervently against asking the people to confirm that decision? A fear that perhaps the people might not do this, might not have been impressed by how their representatives have behaved, a fear that the Brexiteers’ vision might be found wanting. It would certainly not be unkind to suggest that many of those most in favour of a People’s Vote now were much less keen on the People voting once the result of the first vote came out."
Basically you are just too stupid to be able to make a reasoned contribution to any debate.
While some people are struggling there are also a lot of people doing very nicely.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9571785/4-13022019-AP-EN.pdf/83142383-24fb-463d-9c33-62dd7fa1bd2a
While we already knew that France, Germany, Italy and Spain were down year on year its interesting to see that the biggest fall was Ireland at -19.8%.
Though Ireland's economic data often has only a tenuous connection with reality.
And lived to tell the tale.
If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards.
But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
Wait, air fares falling more slowly. Hmm.
Falling energy costs were the big driving in the reduction in the inflation rate.
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
My point is that remainers seem to think one vote to remain in the EU settles the matter forever, but so long as people vote leave the question can be put to them year after year after year.
Toothpaste or washing-up liquid.. at least a year.
Fresh milk.. a week? Three or four if I put some in the freezer?
At that point, whichever it is, is enacted.
So, the analogy would be: what if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, asked "are you sure" one more time.
Only remain is the cup of tea, and remainers are Mrs Doyle, who will keep on asking "go on, go on, go on" until we eventually snap and accept just to hear the end of it.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no-deal-brexit_british-expats-face-quotas-in-switzerland/44752826
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like Sunnil who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
BTW I have been to CERN, as a tourist, back in 2014.
I notice you can pay executives £1.7m for a bridge which doesn't get built.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47228698
Don't they realise that if it wasn't for us they'd all be speaking German now?
After re-unification, we can always call it "Craggy Ireland"
The majority of the public understand that you’re not going to get everything you want but would probably be happy to get 80%.
But they’ve been told by the ERG nutjobs that only a Pure Brexit is acceptable . Equally on the other side the People’s Vote are wasting time and effort flogging a dead horse .
I say this as an ardent Remainer . People need to accept the battles they have a chance of winning and not continue waging a battle that has already been lost .
Efforts should have been aimed at getting a softer Brexit not no Brexit. The EU at this point just want to move on . They don’t want to be used as a continual scapegoat for the UKs problems and don’t want to have to put up with years more of the Tory psychodrama over the EU .
Unfortunately the Commons has descended into open warfare with each faction willing to burn the whole house down to get what they want .
The people who will suffer is the average voter who will end up as collateral damage .
Really, take a good look at yourselves if you really think that a sensible statement.
And try, too, to distinguish between a referendum which asks the question "Do you want to leave or Remain in the EU" and a question which asks "Do you want to leave the EU on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement agreed between the EU and the British government on "x" date or Remain in the EU?
They are not the same question.
If I now prefer Remain - and my view on the original question was much more 50/50 than it seems to have been for many on here - it is because of the behaviour of Leavers and those who have embraced the cause (yes, I mean you, Mrs M) in the time since the referendum.
You promised us the easiest deal in history. Now you think the only possible true Brexit is for us to have no deal at all and hang the consequences.
Do you think if you'd been frank about that and about what it meant - as we are now learning (body bags, medicines being stockpiled etc) - you'd have won the referendum? And if you do, why are you so scared of confirming that?
And of course Remainers would fully cost this and present it in front of the British Populace - wouldn't they?
You can imagine the buses.
"Let's starve the NHS of £400 million a week and fund our EU membership Instead"