I think everyone agrees that the EU needs major reform. This is where the biggest lost opportunity came with Cameron. Being in the pockets of the corporations he has never intended at any point in leaving the EU. Those round the "negotiating table" knew this. They knew he was happy with the status quo. It would have been better if a true euro sceptic had lead the negotiations and forced more reform.. Then Cameron could have come away and pointed saying it was a leave man in charge of negotiations and the deal struck would have had more authenticity. While Germany wouldn't care if we are in or not, leaving would have threatened to show the southern states a way out which Germany can not afford at this point. The whole referendum has been a sham with no other result than descending British politics in even more into playground nonsense.
The immigration one I've never understood why it's so complicated. If people have come to work and do then they are paying the same tax as me into the system and so deserve the same rights and benefits. Increased tax revenue should equate to increased resources for schools hospitals etc to cater for increased population. Of it doesn't that's a govt distribution issue not an immigration issue...it would be no different than if loads of people moved from Newcastle to East London for work...our Govt would have to reallocate the resources to where people live and work.. Maybe I'm missing something here but surely the easiest way to insure no financial drain from migration within the EU would be this: By all means as an EU citizen move wherever you like to find work but if you are not in work you get the same benefits and health care etc you would have got in your country of origin and that country gets billed for it. This way it would be impossible for someone from poorer countries to come here and be unemployed...their benefits wouldn't match the cost of living required to stay. There would only be an incentive to come and work.
The EU cannot and will not be reformed. And it will collapse. Its an unsustainable model, especially because we will see other countries leave in the next 5 years, plus Turkey will soon join. Countries should not have open borders, thats ****ing ridiculous on its own, and lot of the "Out" votes are gonna be Jeremy Kyle level bigot ******s, I understand this. Fact of the matter is though, that a European government that can dictate rules to our government is a frightening prospect. We didn't vote these people in, so they should get no say in how our country is governed, its that simple, thats not democracy. As I have said many times, I despise this Tory government to high heaven, but I can accept them because I know that in 4 years we can get them out (If Labour gets its **** together). The EU and what its trying to do, literally disgusts me to my core, and I will be voting Out, though I believe we will end up staying in. And ultimately it doesn't matter, because the EU will most likely collapse by 2021 in my opinion anyway.
turkey will never join. thats not ever happening. the EU is a self interest model the moment they brought it to 27 countries the focus shifted away form the original 12 and towards the east and thats the main issue. basically there is a flow of money form right across europe into eastern europe but not a good flow. its guys sending money home or greedy speculators but not necessarily the resources to build infrastructure,schools and jobs. We don't want them to build their own we want them to consume ours is the corporate attitude. The issue is a complete turd of a system which has at its heart the classic maintain the status quo and paralysis in decision making. It took 7/8 years to start quantitative easing and didn't do it at same time as rest of word so the whole euro zone is depressed as a result. The point of european rules is 3 fold 1. Free market and trade. 2. human rights. the record here has been largely so much better than what has gone before. We have seen what the tories did to eopel only recently being put right. this is not related but there are far more rights as a result of this body talking and having a voice that there would be via Uk or UN on its own 3. common interest served. global agreements where europe as a big block can get common policy on climate and agriculture etc done wehre a us or china would not care otherwise. What I'd say bod is you have voted them in.. you have your choice of freaks to send to europe and people have chosen badly.. just like Londoners picking boris freaking johnson as mayor.. twice... The EU should actually be cameron sitting with Merkel and the french surrender monkey and deciding. the council of finance ministers are elected by you and all. the rest is just a bureaucracy.. commissioners are appointed by those you elect. We need to reshape it back to a common trade agreement and forum to discuss not let our entire market place sink cos we wnat to go sulk. In many ways the EU is like the eurovision. the 27 states should not have so much say. those little periphery states were all elt in in a socialist esprit de coups but building them up is not the same as frekaing giving them a big voting block to shape agendas where they've no real say.
Far to simple and sensible approach that mate. Some blimp would argue it infringed their human rights though
The UK will continue to push back against European federalism, and there's less of a clamour for it now anyway, post the Euro issues. We will never sign up for a federal Europe, and the Out vote are muddying the waters for the uneducated by quoting Brussels pettiness examples, as the start of a slippery slope towards federalism. The whole thing is akin to us being part of a weekly market, we set our stall up along side the other market traders and the assembled crowds buy their produce from whoever they choose without a tax disadvantage from choosing one traders wares over anothers. What we could be left with is us setting up our stall in an empty square and expecting the crowds who are attending the other market, to make a special trip to ours. Whilst at the same time praying that the market traders group that we've left don't add a surcharge to our wares if the crowds still want our produce. What's the benefit again?
I mean the reality is we are part of nato... we are building bloody ships and aircraft carriers and eurofighters with EUROPEAN ALLIES. do we seriously think we can exit EU can get the same deals? The fact is the europe as set up now is a useless one but its time to fix that not walk out on it. The issue is what jbs would go in UK... what industries support european markets... not uk markets on thier own... this is an interesting read http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d1b3-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz48v3nxTtp the best case is we end up like switzerland.. norway are a kind of different animal with energy etc I think secretly this all boils down tho city of london. If the city of london market is under threat of companies leaving to go to EU based markets then thats the real story.
I am against Brexit. I think it a terrible idea. That said, if Parliament blocks a referendum that represents the people that would be hugely undemocratic. Part of me wants Brexit to fail but for it to be because Parliament blocks the will of the people would be a travesty. I'm against Brexit but definitely pro-democracy, even when it makes the wrong choice.
Agree with this. Should've campaigned the pros of remaining properly in the first place instead of treating people like children and scaring them into voting remain. Incredibly naive in this day and age to expect people to swallow that. But I can see riots and all sorts of bollox if it doesn't go ahead now.
With the decision today it means wealthy people/companies can use the courts to overrule a referendum. If you opposed Brexit you would be happier tonight, but what if there was a referendum on pensions no longer to be company funded and the public voted against, but big companies went to the courts and got it amended so that MP's who they can lobby had the final say, would we be happy with that.
No the point is that just because you have a referendum doesn't make it legal to ignore all other laws to get what you want when you want it.
Brexit can't be stopped, and ultimately any MP that tried to stop it, general election or not, would never get elected again. What is important though is that the shape of Brexit - the single market - is discussed, because it simply wasn't during the referendum. And if the price of the single market is too high for the country to bear, then there should be another general election on HOW we leave the EU. Staying is not an option, but how we leave still is.
Can any of you point to where a referendum is binding in the uk? Just saying..... Also all that has occured today is an affirmation of the primacy of parliment over the pm doing whatever she wants This IS democracy. just as blair needed to lie to go to war in iraq may will ow need to lie about how lovely brexit will be so parliment will rubber stamp this right wing travesty... but at least parliment has to vote on it.
A referendum is only binding if it is written as such; however, it was clearly the will of the people and the government is supposed to enforce the will of the people. That's what makes democracy different to countries where the people do the will of the government.
No constitution.... Ergo no basis to say said referendum is binding. Just saying..... Parliment is supreme, and that's what the high Court upheld. May looks a fool. History points to Charles Ii? trying this on and getting his head lopped off.
Mito, you're excelling in the politicians two step, side step here. (Answered your first question on the Trump forum when you said there was no longer a thread for this...did someone delete the original "your vote counts" thread? but anyway I'll answer it again) How is referendum binding? technically it is not. But. It was in the winning party's manifesto to hold one. Parliament ratified holding one. ALL parties (by parties I mean both in the form of political AND sides of argument) campaigned that the referendum decision was final and would be implemented. There was no proviso added that if either campaign lied (they both did) it would invalidate the result. they couldn't say this because that would mean telling the population what both sides thought: "we think you are stupid enough to believe everything we tell you". that though is irrelevant since both sides decided to trust the population with a vote. the flaws of deciding this are irrelevant after the fact. When it was validated to hold a referendum by parliament there was no threshold included. asking for one when you lose is asking too late. it doesn't invalidate the result. The Govt might have been technically incorrect in not asking parliament to do what they had all agreed during he campaign; ie ratify the result but we also know from the hysterical reaction to the result that there was a good chance enough of the HofC or the Lords would ignore the aforementioned agreement to pass a direct democratic result so, the govt incorrectly decided to ignore a constitutional pillar (parliamentary sovereignty). sorry Mito you are incorrect. there is in fact a British constitution, it's simply not in one codified document....something that can be argued is a blessing when looking at things like the Yanks 2nd ammendment etc. it's just a sad fact that the govt recognised that too many of the mp's would happily betray the people they serve by reversing their position of acceptance if the result didn't go their way. personally? I think the govt should have put it to parliament and dared those cowards to backtrack ...if they had done it soon enough and they refused: hold a snap general election on a vote of no confidence wch imo would have had the Tories back on a bigger majority...May stupidly thought seeing labour keep eating itself was more fun. This nonsense of it being a "victory for parliamentary democracy"? it's slight of hand...it's not why it was challenged in court and it's not why people are cheering the courts decision. it's an attempt to stop what some (including me) disagreed with. That's just a disgrace. Both sides traded on fear instead of logic both sides were arrogant and thought they had the public on a lead they could snap to. both sides unleashed an angry, dismissive idea of superiority that deligitimised the very right of their opponents to form an opinion. This ****e is just going to solidify those mindsets on both sides and infect everything...we will be in Trumpland before we know it.
