He has been floating the idea for several weeks, but probably didn't expect it to suddenly happen. The public are not too bothered one way or the other from what I read. What I do see in the UK press is the total lack of understanding as to how the PM thinks she made any concrete proposals last week to sort out the mess she is in. She is not floating ideas, it is far beyond that. Will she do what is right for the country or just try to keep the Tory party from tearing itself apart?
Thankfully the UK will be long gone before the European superstate is created. I wonder if the eurocrats will bother asking the unwashed proletariat their views or just steam roll in their normal fashion?
I wonder if the Conservatives will bother asking the unwashed proletariat their views or just steam roll in their normal fashion? You must be advocating another referendum.
I didn't include non voters as in the 'Remain' camp, even though poll after poll suggests a clear majority of eligible 'non- voters' (sufficient to change the decision) would have voted 'renain'. My point was simple it is incorrect to claim that 52% of the population voted to leave. Actually 26% of the population voted to leave-less voted to remain. The EU have set no terms whatsoever. They gave simply reiterated (repeatedly as it appears the Uk negotiators have tin ears ) what it means to be in the EU and what leaving entails. Surely even a muppet can see that-well maybe not in some cases. If leaving is so easy, why are the (Tory) negotiators trying so hard to delay it, find 'transitions' etc ?
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to let the people decide by referendum. The way it works is the majority of those that voted would decide the outcome, quite simple really for most people to understand. Parliament then voted overwhelmingly to activate article 50 to start the process. This was subsequently passed in the HoLs. Parliament has continued to vote with the government.
The EU and everyone else with more than one brain cell can see that nothing is being done by the UK to leave without a deal of some sort no matter how much it costs. Talk about handing over the reigns to the EU to get the deal that suits them. The three rules for an orderly departure were set and agreed to despite the bluster. This is turning into a long drawn out waste of time as the government has been, and still is playing for time. When they cannot play it out any longer it will be interesting to see the reaction.
Seems tonight that some are looking for a 5 year transition which is why in that speech the 2 year period was left open ended.
Rather than you keep guessing it would be better to just let them make progress or let the negotiations break down. You have had more positions than the Kama sutra!!
The Macron boy is no fool. As a former rich investment banker he has a good grasp on what is needed to turn his country around. He knows it is imperative to reform France's ridicules labour laws so it can become more business friendly. He also has more of a grasp on the problems of the EU especially in Euroland. It has been acknowledged for ages that the introduction of a common currency before fiscal and political consolidation was both risky and difficult. The eurocrats were so keen to push on with the 'political project' that they were willing to take the gamble, unfortunately many countries in Southern Europe and even Ireland paid the price of this folly. What is clear to Macron, and most economists, is the only way the Euro can survive long term is much further integration towards a super EU state. Controls of tax, spending limits, security etc. There will be a requirement for greater control from the centre in return for increased pooled responsibility for all member nations. Total fiscal and political union. The only problem to this inevitable direction is the majority of the proletariat of the EU do not want it, they prefer, like the UK to a greater extent, to keep their nation state in partial control. So the eurocrats have three options, 1, float along as at present, 2, ask the people -doubtful, or 3, just go ahead without consultation. Whatever happens I am so pleased the UK can extricate itself from this frankenstein's dummy of an organisation fairly soon.
What an amazing turn around from you. Despite being told that Macron would be the next President, you totally rejected the idea. Anyone from the right would be ok for you, and you couldn't believe that people were fed up with the old left and right politics. We have seen similar sentiment in both the UK and Germany, people not engaging with the parties, and both leaders being reigned in. Now Macron is " no fool ". I am sure he could do a better job than we currently watch from the warring ministers inside the current cabinet. Gamble? A strong group of 27 nations that provide us with a huge proportion of out trade that you want to replace with what? Time for head out of the sand and admit that the EU is gathering more and more deals with the countries that see dealing with a trade block is better than a small individual country. I haven't noticed any of the countries striking deals with the EU saying they will hold back until they have formed a deal first with the UK. No what they do say is that the UK can wait. It was all going to be so easy you were told. Anything but!
The Macron boy's ability was never in doubt although almost anyone could see the glaring problems of France and the wider EU. The problem Macron has is that he does not possess a solid base of support, most that voted for him were just anti FN. This is why support for him has drained away so quickly. He obviously prefers the super state option to the current drift where many Southern nations are sacrificed for the good of Germany, with France clinging to its coat tails, begging for scraps. With Merkel now weakened in Germany Macron's ambitious plans may come to nothing so low growth and high unemployment will remain as a symbol of the eurocrats folly.
Thankyou. I cannot decide if you are wilfully blind or wilfully stupid, but as I have infinite patience I will try once again. The statement was made that '52% of the population voted to leave'. This is incorrect and I tried to show this. In fact 37% of the eligible population voted 'leave' and 25% thereabouts of the actual population. I made no comment whatsoever on the rules or their application via government action. Neither did I say that although all the subsequent polls pretty much( 11 out of 13) suggest that of the non voters, a significant majority would have voted remain, the result should somehow be altered. However, I would ask you this. Farage -before the vote said that if it was close ( and he meant 52/48 as close) and the answer was remain, there should be another vote. Do you agree there should be another referendum now ? If leaving is so patently such a good idea, then A) why should anybody think otherwise? 48% of those who voted in fact B) we should have another referendum, equally binding as the leave side could not possibl lose, could they? C) if the outcome of the negotiations is so bad that the govt could not possibly recommend it as a good thing-seriously in all consciousness, then... D) should we remain in the EU without further ado? E) should parliament vote on leaving? F) should there be another referendum? G) will you leave the country?
It should be clear to everybody that it was 52% of those that bothered to vote in the referendum that decided the outcome not 52% of those eligible. I sure if anybody made that statement they meant the former. The referendum is final, decision made, no further vote. The UK should now leave the EU. Parliament can vote on the terms but with continued reference to the referendum result, in other words the UK will leave no matter what. No further referendum on leaving as we already have the result. I will probably stay in the UK but I obviously retain the option of living in Europe again if it suits.
Britain’s Department for Exiting the European Union has only existed for 14 months but already more than 20 per cent of its staff have left. According to the Government’s response to a freedom of information request submitted by Bloomberg, as of 18 August, 124 employees had left the department since it was set up, leaving 482. This would suggest that it is a lousy place to work with a bad atmosphere, or that the civil servants don't want it to be seen on their CV because of the shambolic results it is producing. Whatever, get out and away seems to be popular.
