I trust politicians elected by the people of this country to do what is best for this country. I'm not willing to have our economy and services run by foreign officials just because I have a low opinion of the morals and/or ability of Conservative politicians. Or Labour ones for that matter.
More than a technicality. They deliberately broke the funding rules and got caught.. it's a shame that you are falling into the personal abuse trap, I don't think you are that sort of man.
I am saddened that you would be content to just cross out the result of a national referendum of over 50 million people because the winning side broke some funding rules. If we go down that route, technical reasons can be found to void the results of every future election. And how many general election campaigns in the past were funded by murky businessmen or tyrannical Unions? Every single one. You might as well scrap democracy altogether. Crying foul over funding when you lose a referendum by 2 million votes just reeks of sour grapes. Doubly so, when the entire weight of the British Establishment was lined up to support Cameron and his 'Remain' lobby. Hardly a fair fight in the first place, was it. But the truth is what we know now. Regardless of the result, Leave was never going to be allowed to win.
Yes. The referendum was never declared as 'advisory' at the time. That is a lame legal technicality argument. The referendum was real, and it mattered to everybody. The Leave campaign was not based on lies any more than the Remain one was. How can the country be worse off economically if it pays nothing into the EU instead of XXX billions of pounds, but still trades freely with it? Don't try to tell me the countries of the EU would no longer trade with Britain after Brexit. They would be slitting their own throats.
Then WHY is Britain still a member of the EU three years later, and about to elect new members to the European Parliament? That doesn't meet anybody's definition of Leaving. 2 million more people voted Leave, but Leave lost. That is how the EU works. Ever increasing Federalism first, democracy a distant last.
It's how our 80% remain Parliament works, because the current Government has no majority. When it comes to the referendum result the British Parliament does not reflect the will of the people, it is in contempt of the people. Our politicians don't serve us, they serve themselves and their powerful friends in banking and industry. Powerful friends who don't care about democracy, only a stable economic climate in which to maximise their profits. The EU is a pan-European engine of order and control. We haven't had one of those for about 75 years. And that did not end well.
Our MP'S are the ones we select through a selection process. If there are potentially better MP'S out there why have we not selected them?
Good question. Why is our Parliament 80% remain when the population is roughly 50/50 remain/leave? Because our politicians are not serving the people who elected them. Too many of them are in it only for themselves. But at least we elected them. I would rather deal with the shortcomings of Westminster than be governed as a vassal state from Federalist Brussels.
Hopefully Change UK will sink without trace. Opposition parties always present themselves as the party of change, always have done, but to actually give a party that name is a step too far. Even worse than "New Labour".
Wow, really don't want to dive into this, as mostly every time you argue this, the other side ignore every point you make, but I'll try. The reason that we are still in the EU is they cannot solve the problems that have arisen during negotiations, especially the Irish border. The problem is that the Brexit promoters argued it would be the 'easiest deal in history' and it plainly isn't. Farage argued that he didn't want a no-deal Brexit yet now that is all he offers. he has offered NO solutions to all the myriad problems - he has none. So do we break up the Good Friday agreement and go back to the Irish conflict that most of us grew up with? Watch the Scots vote for Independence? I don't remember any of that being offered as a Brexit that would break up the UK. We keep coming back to the fact that there were a number of options for leaving the UK. Lardi clearly just wants out, but that is a no deal Brexit. No EU nurses, doctors, or trade. You don't want to pay the EU money we are contractually obliged to pay? So no deal and no trade. But where are all the new trade deals that Gove promised us? Virtually none are ready, and most will be much worse than if we were in the EU. We already hear that we can start to trade with the US when we drop our food standards to allow them to sell us dodgy clorinated chicken. Whopee. So the bad old EU were trying to maintain food standards and we want to lower them to allow people to be poisoned? The logical way out of the impasse would be a second binding referendum. Straight leave or remain, with leave divided into what sort of deal the leavers want. If leave get an overall majority, we leave according to the most popular deal on that side. But there, it may still involve a customs union, which Lardi thinks is unacceptable. Genuine question mate - who told you Brexit would be the one you want? Because there is no description of it on the package. But there are various options, and no deal was never being promoted by any of the leavers.
Valid points, but the leavers have a valid complaint. We were given a ballot paper which simply said in or out, as though it was that straightforward. At the previous referendum 40 years ago the negotiations took place before the vote, and the present mess stems from the fact that things were done the other way around.
I agree, but my point remains - which leave do they want? Lardi has repeatedly said he want's out - but is that representative of 14m who voted? I keep hearing how Brexit has been betrayed, but I never hear a solution to the Irish border and how to respect the Good Friday agreement. If any of these people could come up with a solution that respects Brexit and the GFA, I'd be happier. But May can't do it. Farage won't even address the question. And the DUP are quite happy to return to the 1970's in Belfast. So come on - anyone got a deal that will respect the Irish agreement of no hard border, and Brexit? It's not hard to see the problem. But even easier to yell about democracy not being respected and ignore a fundamental flaw in the negotiations.
What I hear most is that leavers "just want out", it doesn't matter how. The buzzword on the Irish border issue is "alternative arrangements", which is popular because of the lack of clarity; "technology" ditto.
The Brexit I want is the same one I wanted in 2016. The clue was in the word on the ballot paper - 'Leave'. I want the UK to leave the European Union. No half-way houses. No deals. No divorce payment. We go all the way out. Once that is done, we start negotiating trade deals and security deals with the EU like any other Country which is not an EU member but wishes to trade with it would do. But our negotiations are conducted from a 100% independent platform. And there is no need for a hard border in Ireland. I've got no problem with free movement of Irish citizens and UK citizens anywhere on the Island of Ireland. And if members of other EU countries cross into the UK there, no problem. They'll have whatever rights in the UK that our Government decides, whether they walk over from Eire or fly over from Paris. The only reason for a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is money. And in my book that is nowhere near a good enough reason to start putting up fences and returning to the Troubles. Nobody needs to die because of some pathetic differences in taxes or duties. If a hard border ever goes back up in Ireland every politician in the UK and the EU will be guilty of the most shameful and unforgivable failure. Everything else is just project fear. If Scotland wants independence let them have it. That'll be billions more saved to spend on health and schools and policing in England. Yes there will be disruption for a while at the ports and supermarkets might run out of avocados, but how much damage has already been done to our economy because of 3 years of indecision, and probably years more in limbo still to come.
So when we refuse to pay the divorce bill, any trade arrangements come to a grinding halt with our nearest market. WTO trade deals involve a hard border, so in order to arrange WTO deals, the hard border comes into effect. Or we can arrange a deal like Norway. That involves obeying the rules regarding trade that the EU have in order to access their market, but without being able to influence them. I actually think you are probably holding the majority view among those who want Brexit - it has come to the point that you guys don't care about the damage you will wreak on the UK economy, Brexit has to be done. I have a lot of mates over there who don't want it as they know the damage it will do, but I must admit I sometimes think you should just be allowed to do it, and suffer the consequences. And they'll be heavy. The money we pay into the EU will be a drop in the ocean when the economy starts to nosedive, and businesses flee. At least, that's my opinion. You may well be right and it all comes up roses.But I wouldn't run the risks to the UK for the nominal advantages on offer 8and that's me being generous). Would you consider a referendum to decide if that view is universal, and if Brexit is still the majority decision?
@lardiman I should probably also thank you for answering the questions - we obviously aren't going to agree, but I appreciate your point of view is yours and dear to you. I'll leave this thread now, I'm more worried about Sunderland at the moment.
You need to worry about whether we will have a management team next week Ken.... almost as important as Sunderland!
