Agreed, and if you don't bother to vote you can't complain about the result.The difference between the two is that as an MP you are only elected for a term, which can be no more than 5 years. Whereas some people seem to think that a referendum result is forever. which it isn't. It's only valid until you ask the question again. As we did before (with a similar question) in 1975.Oh and you mean that Julia Hartley-Brewer who used to write for the Sunday Express. There's a surprise !
Stupid radio presenter missing the point, and doesn't understand the difference between national referendum democracy and parliamentary democracy. Anyway, she wiped the floor with that tosser Goldsmith
And as with the Scots ref, perhaps in a generation the question could be asked again. Not in short order though - the majority have spoken.
QuoteStupid radio presenter missing the point, and doesn't understand the difference between national referendum democracy and parliamentary democracy. Anyway, she wiped the floor with that tosser Goldsmith Spot on. Dreadful interview. The interview seems to be about Julia Hartley-Brewer skewed political views rather than the interviewee. Pish. It seemed like a case of the inexperienced interviewee letting the interviewer off the hook.On the other hand whilst channel hopping the other night I came across ‘The Preston Report’ and being interviewed was Baroness Warsi I think she was. The referendum was discussed and Warsi stated that Brexit means Brexit, Preston asked whether that was a hard or soft Brexit – Warsi waffled on about the country having decided etc but wouldn’t answer the question. Sadly, in that case the interviewer let the interviewee of the hook.QuoteAnd as with the Scots ref, perhaps in a generation the question could be asked again. Not in short order though - the majority have spoken.If it is to be a hard Brexit then there is a strong possibility of a second Scottish Referendum on Independence. We were told in the 2014 referendum the only way that Scotland could guarantee remaining in the EU was to vote NO. Many people voted NO on that basis. Then in 2016 a load of turkeys voted for Christmas. Let’s face it the leave campaign won on the back of blatant lies. To use the latest buzz phrase, it was a post truth referendum. And having voted to leave we now find that nobody knows what it actually means to leave.I think that means a second EU referendum – this time based on facts – tell the people what the deal is and what the cost is. That’s if the Brexiters can even get to the point of putting a deal together!
Mistruths on both sides: immediate recession, war in Europe all scare mongering.
What about Scot's ref where Sturgeon banked on an oil boom to fund the costings?
I bet ScotNats have boiling piss for not mounting legal challenges in 2014
If it is to be a hard Brexit then there is a strong possibility of a second Scottish Referendum on Independence. We were told in the 2014 referendum the only way that Scotland could guarantee remaining in the EU was to vote NO. Many people voted NO on that basis. Then in 2016 a load of turkeys voted for Christmas. Let’s face it the leave campaign won on the back of blatant lies.
what the result would be?
Quotewhat the result would be? It would of course be REMAIN. Which is what pissed me off about the whole business. Here we have MP's etc telling us that the result is clear - the country has spoken. Yet it is clear that the LEAVE campaign was almost 100% pure bull shit.You could say that this is standard practise for politics, but I’d say it sets a dangerous precedent, and we’ve kinda seen it again just recently with the US Presidential elections. Yup, it’s the ‘post truth’ era, say whatever you want to get the result you want.Michael Gove made the seminal statement of the BREXIT campaign “we’ve had enough of the experts” The REMAIN campaign meanwhile failed to put the positive case for the EU, instead thinking that project fear worked well in Scotland (when in fact it was a disaster), well they just rolled out the same old crap again and expected people to do as they were told. They couldn’t have got it more wrong.Right across most of the developed world people are more and more pissed off. Our economies have been miss-managed, services have been cut, workers terms, rights, conditions and pay have been cut whilst the elite have prospered like never before.People wanted something to kick, and the Tory party offered up the EU with DC’s dumb EU referendum. And the arrogant project fear just encouraged people to kick it hard.But yeah what when the reality kicks in. There’s no money to be saved. It will cost billions upon billions over many years to remove ourselves from the EU, and then of course, the reality that, well, actually we really could do with free access to the biggest and most advanced single trading market in the whole world that just so happens to be on our doorstep. Second EU referendum? Yes please!
Oh, dear what Gove actually said was "We've had enough of the 'experts' ", the political class who think you are better than you or I. Off the top of my head: Blair/Mandelson - The Iraq debacle, Major, privy council enforcer, The Kinnocks £1m/year from the EU (inc expenses), Ken Clarke (The Tobacco barons stooge), the EU benificiaries of our payments. They think they know better than us, but by-and-large they only want to feather their own nests.
As for the cost of the EU, 40% is spent on CAP. Measures show it has little or no social benefit.
Stupid practices like once monthly taking the whole parliament to Strasbourg are unjustifiably wasteful, yet one country got it's way and the rest had to fund this ridiculous process (do you like your income tax being spent on that? I bloody don't)
QuoteOh, dear what Gove actually said was "We've had enough of the 'experts' ", the political class who think you are better than you or I. Off the top of my head: Blair/Mandelson - The Iraq debacle, Major, privy council enforcer, The Kinnocks £1m/year from the EU (inc expenses), Ken Clarke (The Tobacco barons stooge), the EU benificiaries of our payments. They think they know better than us, but by-and-large they only want to feather their own nests. Oh no he did not! - Here's the interview; ! No longer available QuoteAs for the cost of the EU, 40% is spent on CAP. Measures show it has little or no social benefit. Indeed. However, CAP is a little more complex than some would have us believe. It’s one of the reasons I want us to stay in the EU. The Rural Development Fund comes under Cap. We’ve derived huge benefits from that fund in Scotland. From 1979 onwards we endured 17 years of Tory rule that we did not vote for, if it wasn’t for CAP and the Rural Development fund many of our more remote communities would have perished and died, communities that today with investment are now thriving and contributing to the economy. So oh yes there is social benefit. QuoteStupid practices like once monthly taking the whole parliament to Strasbourg are unjustifiably wasteful, yet one country got it's way and the rest had to fund this ridiculous process (do you like your income tax being spent on that? I bloody don't)I’ll agree with you there pilninggas, yes it a total waste of money and some of these practises give the EU and air of arrogance which is coming back to bite it now.
Obama, The IMF both backtracked aftwerwards, the others want to deals with us. Gove was bang on about the Eurocrats wanting to play an independent UK down, as a net contributor they were desperate to paint our exit as a doom and gloom story - disgusting behaviour. A degree in PPE does not an expert make and the more of these career-politicos sent to pasture the better.
For me it comes back to a simple fact that the EU is never going to reform
You have said there is no advantage to leaving, I still see exiting CAP and managing our subsidies as a classically obvious reason to leave. Why should UK taxpayers fund the farmers of other countries? Why isn't removing another layer of governance an advantage? I want less politicians making higher quality decisions, not loads contradicting each other on different levels.
You mean the experts that said house prices would go down by 10%, interest rates would go up , there'd need an emergency budget , a double dip recession would happen , firms like Nissan and google would not invest and leave altogether ,unemployment would rise and Trump didn't have a cat in hells chance..... hmmm don't ya just love an expert
You mean the experts that said house prices would go down by 10%, interest rates would go up , there'd need an emergency budget , a double dip recession would happen , firms like Nissan and google would not invest and leave altogether ,unemployment would riseexpert
But we are still full members of the EU. Nothing has yet changed.
The main point of the EU is to create one single market, open access and single standards across it’s member states
We Brexit but pay to access the single market and accept free movement (which will pretty much mean paying what we pay now – no discount on a new deal – but having no say in how the EU reforms.
Yes but the point being made is that we were told all of that would happen straight away in June.
QuoteYes but the point being made is that we were told all of that would happen straight away in June.Um I don't think we were. Interest rates will go up. Inflation is already rising because of the weak £. Interest rates will follow. The government has already said it will borrow, and if so interest rates will rise. When interest rates rise, house prices will fall as people cannot afford their mortgage and try to sell. It's basic economics.Nissan has been bribed with a hidden (and possibly empty) promise. I see today major banks are making contingency plans to move to Europe. Paris wants them. It will take 30,000 extra Civil Servants to manage this mess.I see today that Boris the Brexiteer still can't keep his mouth shut. Of course he might take the opposite view tomorrow. What a star!
Author
Topic: Great interview (Read 10304 times)
