Do you want a 2nd BREXIT vote?

Hard Brexit, soft Brexit? It's as if Theresa May wants it both ways and she looks destined to fail.
Now Nigel Farage is practically sounding Pro-European by suggesting another referendum to quell signs of buyer's remorse, although he may have since walked that back a bit.
Hard-line Remainers like Tony Blair prefer the word 'plebiscite', but let's face it, it appears the average Brit is having a tough time with an EU divorce.
So what do guys think? Here in the States everyone I know would want a re-do on Trump. You want another crack at the Brexit decision?

Abso-fucking-lutley!

Peejaye?:)

No. A democratic vote was held. Whether you are a remainer or a leaver, stop complaining and work together. The public had the chance to vote and they did. Accept it, believe in yourselves, take your first step into the big wide world of business and opportunity and move on.The UK has decided to take back control and should start discussing all the things the country could do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forrest Hump

No. A democratic vote was held. Whether you are a remainer or a leaver, stop complaining and work together. The public had the chance to vote and they did. Accept it, believe in yourselves, take your first step into the big wide world of business and opportunity and move on.The UK has decided to take back control and should start discussing all the things the country could do with it.

---

democratic? Americans don't vote directly on issues of national policy.
Our founders (Washington, Jefferson,Hamilton, etc) created a representative government to avoid the whims of a fickle public

Let's vote on the re-vote....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forrest Hump

Accept it, believe in yourselves, take your first step into the big wide world of business and opportunity and move on.

---

Given Great Britain's history this strikes me as very patronizing sounding advice. In fact, I can imagine a father saying this to his irresponsible son who just came of age. First step into the big wide world of business? Holy shit. I'll leave it up to the Brits to discuss the merits and demerits of another vote but I just wonder what those who support Brexit out of nationalistic spirit make of their beneficent American supporter's advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

democratic? Americans don't vote directly on issues of national policy.
Our founders (Washington, Jefferson,Hamilton, etc) created a representative government to avoid the whims of a fickle public

---

Yes, democratic. It can't get anymore democratic than that! It is one of the most important foundations on which our Greco-Roman society is built upon. An important question is put to the population and the people of that nation vote on it. Thus giving a clear indication of the public's will on said matter. Hence demokratia rule of the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forrest Hump

Yes, democratic. It can't get anymore democratic than that! It is one of the most important foundations on which our Greco-Roman society is built upon. An important question is put to the population and the people of that nation vote on it. Thus giving a clear indication of the public's will on said matter. Hence demokratia rule of the people.

---

This is going to thread hijack but if you'll all indulge me one isolated question and then right back on track. What do you think of the electoral college v. the popular vote in U.S. Presidential elections? Which is more demokratia or whatever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Given Great Britain's history this strikes me as very patronizing sounding advice. In fact, I can imagine a father saying this to his irresponsible son who just came of age.

---

Patronising? On the contrary, I rather see it as encouraging advice and typical of that phlegmatic British approach. Leaving the EU reopens whole areas of policy-making that have been off limits for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This is going to thread hijack but if you'll all indulge me one isolated question and then right back on track. What do you think of the electoral college v. the popular vote in U.S. Presidential elections? Which is more demokratia or whatever?

---

Anyway, we both know the answer but this is fairly moot. Not all of the institutions in either the U.S. or Great Britain are set up to be as purely democratic as possible. There is a reason that a lot of legislation passes through elected representatives. One is that elected representatives can be more attuned to the details of the legislation and also because some issues are more complicated that what is represented in a simple yes no referendum and require intensive negotiation that can only take place in a representative body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This is going to thread hijack but if you'll all indulge me one isolated question and then right back on track. What do you think of the electoral college v. the popular vote in U.S. Presidential elections? Which is more demokratia or whatever?

---

the electoral college was created so that densely populated states like New York and Massachusetts would not overwhelming influence the election of president at the detriment of small states like Virginia and Georgia.
It didn't work out that well in 2016 but whatever....there's zero chance that our United States election platform will ever be amended. ZERO
!!!Onto to the BREXIT controversy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

the electoral college was created so that densely populated states like New York and Massachusetts would not overwhelming influence the election of president at the detriment of small sates like Virginia and Georgia.
!!!Onto to the BREXIT controversy

---

I agree. I was just curious about his fidelity to a pure democracy. It's not our system. It's not Great Britain's either in my understanding. Yes a referendum is the most directly democratic means of deciding anything but it's not necessarily the most effective way to legislate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This is going to thread hijack but if you'll all indulge me one isolated question and then right back on track. What do you think of the electoral college v. the popular vote in U.S. Presidential elections? Which is more demokratia or whatever?

---

Personally, the electoral college mechanism you have in place is just as indirect as the first-past-the-post voting method in the UK and can result in a different outcome due to tactical voting. A popular/direct voting system whereby the vox populi would vote on a presidential/prime-ministerial candidate to represent the nation is more democratic in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

the electoral college was created so that densely populated states like New York and Massachusetts would not overwhelming influence the election of president at the detriment of small states like Virginia and Georgia.
It didn't work out that well in 2016 but whatever....there's zero chance that our United States election platform will ever be amended. ZERO
!!!Onto to the BREXIT controversy

---

Somehow, I also think that it will never be amended. There was talk about changing the first-past-the-post system in the UK after the General Election before-last. However probably just as unlikely. Although never say never chaps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forrest Hump

Somehow, I also think that it will never be amended. There was talk about changing the first-past-the-post system in the UK after the General Election before-last. However probably just as unlikely. Although never say never chaps!

---

I brought it up only to challenge the notion that the most democratic institutions are always better than less democratic ones. I was curious about your fidelity to the principle you stated but I can see you're all in. Can you see why elected representatives might not just be more practical but also might do a better job in some cases? They actually have a better sense of how government functions and what types of negotiations are feasible? I'm sure there's a reason national referenda are not self-executing in Britain and have been an exceedingly rare way to decide matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forrest Hump

Patronising? On the contrary, I rather see it as encouraging advice and typical of that phlegmatic British approach. Leaving the EU reopens whole areas of policy-making that have been off limits for decades.

---

Such as?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

Hard Brexit, soft Brexit? It's as if Theresa May wants it both ways and she looks destined to fail.
Now Nigel Farage is practically sounding Pro-European by suggesting another referendum to quell signs of buyer's remorse, although he may have since walked that back a bit.
Hard-line Remainers like Tony Blair prefer the word 'plebiscite', but let's face it, it appears the average Brit is having a tough time with an EU divorce.
So what do guys think? Here in the States everyone I know would want a re-do on Trump. You want another crack at the Brexit decision?

---

A second referendum is as bad an idea as was the first one.

Point one: The same people on the Leave side who then and since have argued that the UK should 'take back control' from what they describe as the 'Brussels bureaucracy' and return sovereignty to Parliament based their entire long-term aim to leave the EU on a decision taken away from that Parliament, as if elected MPs had no authority to make the decision in Parliament and in spite of the legal reality that only Parliament can make the decision.

Point two: the law states clearly that a referendum in the UK can only advise the government, there is nothing in law that states a government is obliged to implement the decision of any referendum into law. There may be a moral argument, but even that may be contested if the margin of victory is small, the turnout low, and the result widely different across the UK, as indeed was the case in the EU Referendum with significant majorities for Remain in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the overall margin of victory less than 5% of the total vote.

Point three: a second referendum would present the same arguments as the first one and may produce the same outcome give or take a few percentage points, but offer an opportunity for those determined to tell lies to carry on lying on the basis that the truth is irrelevant, the impression is all that matters. Since nobody actually knows what the truth is going to be, the referendum would thus become an incoherent slanging match in which both sides make as many outrageous claims as they can while smearing the reputation of each other. The fate of the UK deserves much better than a temporary festival of bullshit.

Point four: only Parliament can make the decision, it is as simple as that.
Parliament took us into the EEC in 1973, it is taking us out of the EU in 2018/19, in both cases through statutory instruments- the EU Withdrawal Bill currently in the Lords being the key item of legislation. If Parliament is given the right to vote on the 'final settlement' with the EU, if that is what it is called, that will be the last and only opportunity for Parliament to act, but can Parliament through that vote actually prevent the UK from leaving the EU if it has already passed a law stating just that? At best, a vote against the 'final settlement' can only delay exit from the EU and force the government to return to Brussels to seek an amendment to whatever has been agreed.
However, the 'final settlement' is not an agreement between the UK and the EU on the relationship the UK is going to have with the EU, but an agreement on the terms of the separation of the two. The UK and the EU can discuss what trade relations might look like after Brexit, but can only begin when Brexit has happened. The UK must first leave the EU before it can negotiate new arrangements across the board. All that can be agreed upon now are principles.

Conclusion: No second referendum is either necessary or desirable, Parliament is sovereign, it has always been the sovereign policy and law making authority in the UK and there is no reason for it to give up that authority to a menagerie of liars and frauds be they Rupert Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers, a rag-bag of Neo-Nazis, fascists and white nationalists or for that matter the Trotskyist Fourth International and their comrades in the Momentum Labour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Such as?

---

Given how extensive EU law is, an awful lot. Some will depend on the deal we have with the EU.

In 1997, Tony Blair campaigned to scrap VAT on domestic gas and electricity. But because of the EU, he had to settle for 5 per cent. Once the UK leaves the EU, the government could do what Blair couldn’t.

Tories and Labour have wanted to scrap the hated ‘tampon tax’ — VAT on tampons. But what is impossible inside the EU becomes possible outside. In fact, the government could scrap the hideously complex VAT system — a job creation scheme for accountants that had to be brought in when the UK joined the EU — altogether, and go back to the simple purchase tax we had before.

In the 1990s, there were endless protests along the coast against exporting live lambs and calves for slaughter in Europe. The government wanted to ban the exports, but couldn’t because of EU rules. Animal welfare groups, take note.

In 2012, Nicola Sturgeon passed a law to impose minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland, but it has not come in because the ECJ complained. She could control Scottish fisheries to revitalise Scottish fishing ports.

The last Labour government fought to have control of EU regional development funding to the UK; a money-go-round nonsense. Come Brexit, the government will be able to design funding to fit the country’s priorities. A Northern Powerhouse for instance.

The UK could also be brought closer together by introducing variable Air Passenger Duty — such as scrapping it on flights from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or halving it from Scotland to England. Impossible in the EU, but possible outside.

There was a huge national moan when duty free for passengers travelling to Europe was abolished, because it conflicted with EU single market rules. Come Brexit, the government could bring back duty free for trips to France, Spain and Italy.

The head of the British Bankers’ Association promoted competition in banking, arguing that challenger banks should have a level playing field with large banks on prudential regulation. The government was supportive, but the barrier was the EU. It was a constant frustration to the UK’s global financial institutions that the EU would apply its rules to their operations all over the world, making them less competitive internationally. Come Brexit, it seems likely the government would be able to ensure that a UK bank or insurance company working in the US or Asia can compete with US or Asian banks on a level playing field.

Byzantine EU rules can make procurement by public authorities a tortuous quagmire. The former minister Francis Maude fought a valiant battle for major reform. But Brexit means the government can set up a more effective procurement regime, helping improve public services.

David Cameron focused his brutalising EU renegotiation on being allowed to stop paying UK child benefit payments to children who don’t live in the UK. Once the UK leaves, the government could do it in the time it takes to write the press release! The government will also be allowed to ensure that EU citizens living in the UK follow the same rules as British citizens on bringing in spouses. The government will have the freedom to set language rules for EU doctors, and to deport EU criminals.

So as you can see, many things. There are lots of things the government opposed at the time, but which we will end up keeping. It lost a battle to stop passengers getting compensation if aeroplane delays are caused by technical problems. I doubt that will change.

Then there are things a future government might want to do, but which at the moment it can’t. It is clear, for example, that the wholesale nationalisation of the train system is an infringement of the EU’s Fourth Railway Package, which requires governments to open up train services to the markets. If Corbyn were to become PM, Brexit would enable him to deliver on his pledge for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Peejaye?:)

---

Do you really need to ask? We've had one. If the re-moaners would of won; do you think we would be asking for another referendum?
I honestly don't think there will be one although the PM we have seems to be doing her best to try and stay in it! I really don't know where we are with it all to be honest?
It's also very clear to me the only people interested in this thread are the sad Political elite who can't accept the result.
Well said Forrest Hump, I know the who three individuals are who've thumb downed your posting, it's just stupid and petty . Their "gravy train" as been derailed; & hopefully all the fucking "quangos" it fetched with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

democratic? Americans don't vote directly on issues of national policy.
Our founders (Washington, Jefferson,Hamilton, etc) created a representative government to avoid the whims of a fickle public

---

That sounds like a dictatorship to me? How dare you call the general public fickle? Ever thought of going to North Korea?
In the UK we elect our Politicians, the best ones claim to listen to the "fickle" public and act on their wishes!

[QUOTE=Kim Jong-un;1821554]
This post from Kim Jong-un first appeared in Rupert Murdoch's rag, The Sun on the 9th February-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/553497...-after-brexit/

Here are some rational objections to some on the list-

In fact, the government could scrap the hideously complex VAT system — a job creation scheme for accountants that had to be brought in when the UK joined the EU — altogether, and go back to the simple purchase tax we had before.

--The demand for money will be so intense as revenue falls when leaving the EU this is unlikely, thus-
Although, theoretically it will be possible for the VAT system to be abolished in the UK post Brexit, I wouldn’t encourage anyone to get too excited about the prospect of that happening. In 2015/16, of the £535bn plus of tax revenue generated, VAT accounted for 22% of this, second only to Income Tax. It would appear inconceivable that this level of tax income could be generated from elsewhere. Add to this the fact that a VAT like system is operated in over 160 countries worldwide, it would appear to be a safe bet that VAT is here to stay, Brexit or no Brexit.
http://www.armstrongwatson.co.uk/blo...ll-it-mean-vat

In the 1990s, there were endless protests along the coast against exporting live lambs and calves for slaughter in Europe. The government wanted to ban the exports, but couldn’t because of EU rules. Animal welfare groups, take note.
--And who is going to champion this, the 'free marketeer' Michael Gove?

Environment Secretary Michael Gove is believed to be preparing to announce a ban on all live exports of animals for slaughter after the UK leaves the European Union, in a move that would hit Scottish hill farmers.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...orts-1-4682590

In 2012, Nicola Sturgeon passed a law to impose minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland, but it has not come in because the ECJ complained. She could control Scottish fisheries to revitalise Scottish fishing ports.
--But Scotland does have the right to impose a minimum alcohol pricing mechanism within the EU-

The Scottish Parliament passed the minimum pricing legislation five years ago but it was tied up in a legal challenge by the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) until last week, when the Supreme Court ruled that it did not breach EU law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-42066394

The last Labour government fought to have control of EU regional development funding to the UK; a money-go-round nonsense. Come Brexit, the government will be able to design funding to fit the country’s priorities. A Northern Powerhouse for instance.
--And where is this money going to come from? The North-East is so dependent on the supply chain the auto industry it could face oblivion if there is a substantial contraction of business with the EU.

The UK could also be brought closer together by introducing variable Air Passenger Duty — such as scrapping it on flights from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or halving it from Scotland to England. Impossible in the EU, but possible outside.
--So what? The cost of flights from the UK to the EU could rise substantially, and that is where most of the air traffic is oriented.

There was a huge national moan when duty free for passengers travelling to Europe was abolished, because it conflicted with EU single market rules. Come Brexit, the government could bring back duty free for trips to France, Spain and Italy.
-But duty free is a dodge to stop paying UK duties on alcohol, so I guess you are saying this is a win-win for the EU and a major loss of trade for UK traders -ie, the UK loses revenue yet again, unless you think the revenue from the ferries will compensate!

I could go on but we would be back in the realm of the Brexit Wonderland as patented by Rupert Murdoch, the man who brought soft-porn to the daily newspapers, who employs journalists that break the law to invent stories when they can't find any to report, that prints hand-outs from the police and the government to cover up crimes rather than employ jouralists to investigate them, and who supports the campaigns of lies and racial abuse by the President of the USA in his campaign to 'drain the swamp' while apparently borrowing another $10 trillion because who cares about the debt anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

Well said Forrest Hump, I know the who three individuals are who've thumb downed your posting, it's just stupid and petty .

---

Yeah, you'd be wrong about that, too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

but let's face it, it appears the average Brit is having a tough time with an EU divorce.

---

The day an "average Brit" appears on US television will be the day hell freezes over. Please please; do NOT assume the average Brit is anything like Tony Blair! :puke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

That sounds like a dictatorship to me? How dare you call the general public fickle? Ever thought of going to North Korea?
In the UK we elect our Politicians, the best ones claim to listen to the "fickle" public and act on their wishes!

---

I personally wouldn't say the public is not trustworthy when it comes to knowing what it wants.

But I would say that the average person only has time to know what objectives he wants and not every policy detail. The members of Parliament are responsible for taking into account what you want AND what's feasible and prudent. That may sound paternalistic, but it's not because you can't be trusted, it's because you do not have hours of your day to dedicate to policy detail.

I struggle every day to keep up with what's going on. I still don't know most of the important things in the tax bill that passed in our country. But I know that I supported elected representatives who would have fought against tax cuts that don't have a stimulus effect and ended up being a huge boon to wealthy interests.

I would argue a referendum is just not a good way to decide important and consequential policy issues. And as Stavros said, the results are advisory, and your Parliament ultimately makes the decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

And as Stavros said, the results are advisory, and your Parliament ultimately makes the decision.

---

I know what advisory means generally but what should advisory mean in practice? Should your Parliament have felt duty bound to follow the results of the referendum no matter how difficult? Or could they have taken the approach that "this is what the public wants, we'll see if we can achieve it on rational terms, but if not we'll do what we deem best?" Had they taken this last approach would that have been seen as breaking faith with or double-crossing the public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I know what advisory means generally but what should advisory mean in practice? Should your Parliament have felt duty bound to follow the results of the referendum no matter how difficult? Or could they have taken the approach that "this is what the public wants, we'll see if we can achieve it on rational terms, but if not we'll do what we deem best?" Had they taken this last approach would that have been seen as breaking faith with or double-crossing the public?

---

When the European Union Referendum Act was passed by Parliament in 2015 giving the government the authority to hold the referendum in 2016, it was kept deliberately simple. The existing electorate would be asked one of two either/or questions. The proposals during the debate to extend the franchise to 16-17 year olds was rejected, as was the proposal that the result only be valid if the winning margin matched a pre-determined figure. These were seen as 'spoilers' designed to make it harder for Leave to win, yet in the end the fact that the winning margin was less than 5% and the regional disparity so large in the cases of Scotland and Northern Ireland, some still feel that, morally the result was not as conclusive as Leave should have liked.

Nevertheless the government could have stated it noted the result but would not take it further, and legally, the Leave campaigns could have done nothing about that. On the other hand, what would have been the point of a referendum if there was no intention of implementing its result? In fact, this is one of the key reasons why in the UK governments most of the time avoid the use of referendums as a means of making policy. It is not just expensive, time consuming and potentially divisive, the govt that sets the question cannot guarantee that it will win. The concept of a referendum as being only 'advisory' is therefore a safety valve which in theory at least, allows a govt to note the result without acting on it, or acting on only a part of what the vote called for. It would in fact be better to scrap referendums altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

That sounds like a dictatorship to me? How dare you call the general public fickle? Ever thought of going to North Korea?
In the UK we elect our Politicians, the best ones claim to listen to the "fickle" public and act on their wishes!

---

you're right. 'fickle' is not my right to use that word
But it's because the general public in the two great democracies on our planet voted for BREXIT and Trump.
Yea, I'm a little disappointed in the judgement of regular people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

democratic? Americans don't vote directly on issues of national policy.
Our founders (Washington, Jefferson,Hamilton, etc) created a representative government to avoid the whims of a fickle public

---

No ...you're exactly right because a Government for, of, and by the People MUST juggle catastrophe at all times.
I'm guessing Brexit boils down to Immigration, just like Trump. It took pissed off women 150 years to get the "right" to vote, but to this day the only thing a pissed off blackman gets is a trip to jail. The biggest flaw in a Democracy are it's people, same as any other form of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

How dare you call the general public fickle?

---

Peejaye, did you not tell us in the other Brexit thread that you voted to Leave not because of the EU, but because you opposed David Cameron and his government's policies of economic austerity? You were not asked to vote on domestic economic policy but on the future of the country in a vote that you surely knew would change the UK for more than a generation -and yet you ignored this out of spite. What, then, is a fickle voter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Peejaye, did you not tell us in the other Brexit thread that you voted to Leave not because of the EU, but because you opposed David Cameron and his government's policies of economic austerity? You were not asked to vote on domestic economic policy but on the future of the country in a vote that you surely knew would change the UK for more than a generation -and yet you ignored this out of spite. What, then, is a fickle voter?

---

You are partially correct but I have been saying the European Union should be broken up for about 5 years are so. I think some people have mistaken me for a floating voter who watches television then decides how to vote. You couldn't be more wrong. I don't sit on the fence with anything. I still feel the same and won't be happy till the lot is broken up. You seem to struggle with this? Cameron going was a huge bonus. I didn't actually believe him before the result as he, like most Tories, is a passive liar.
I've STILL yet to see or meet anyone who isn't wealthy who actually voted to remain & I will add; I still think YOU are a Politician or someone who's worked very closely with them but that's your business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

No ...you're exactly right because a Government for, of, and by the People MUST juggle catastrophe at all times.
I'm guessing Brexit boils down to Immigration, just like Trump. It took pissed off women 150 years to get the "right" to vote, but to this day the only thing a pissed off blackman gets is a trip to jail. The biggest flaw in a Democracy are it's people, same as any other form of government.

---

thx for providing me the appropriate opportunity to use my favorite quote (Stavros hates it)
"democracy is the worst form of government.... except for all the others"
Winston Curchill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

thx for providing me the appropriate opportunity to use my favorite quote (Stavros hates it)
"democracy is the worst form of government.... except for all the others"
Winston Curchill

---

I have trouble believing this could be anyone's favorite quote. In form it looks like a clever or memorable statement but is lacking any depth, insight, or wisdom. It is my favorite quotation, except for all the others.

The issue with referendum is the degree to which an issue is decided in a purely democratic manner as opposed to being mediated through representatives. Likewise in our country, it is not just our representative government that prevents pure democracy but also inviolable rights that we set aside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kim Jong-un

The head of the British Bankers’ Association promoted competition in banking, arguing that challenger banks should have a level playing field with large banks on prudential regulation. The government was supportive, but the barrier was the EU. It was a constant frustration to the UK’s global financial institutions that the EU would apply its rules to their operations all over the world, making them less competitive internationally. Come Brexit, it seems likely the government would be able to ensure that a UK bank or insurance company working in the US or Asia can compete with US or Asian banks on a level playing field.
.

---

I was wondering if you could give some examples of how this might work to your benefit. In particular what regulations would you be able to avoid? So you're saying you think your financial sector is going to be more profitable if banks are able to avoid costly regulations in countries that have less stringent regulations? Why is more legislation appropriate in some places but not others and in what ways would your banks be more competitive if the E.U did not restrict their practices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

You are partially correct but I have been saying the European Union should be broken up for about 5 years are so. I think some people have mistaken me for a floating voter who watches television then decides how to vote. You couldn't be more wrong. I don't sit on the fence with anything. I still feel the same and won't be happy till the lot is broken up. You seem to struggle with this? Cameron going was a huge bonus. I didn't actually believe him before the result as he, like most Tories, is a passive liar.
I've STILL yet to see or meet anyone who isn't wealthy who actually voted to remain & I will add; I still think YOU are a Politician or someone who's worked very closely with them but that's your business.

---

Fair enough, I give you credit for voting against Cameron as well as being opposed to the EU, but I still wonder why. The UK was a founder member of the European Free Trade Area in 1960 and the economic growth of the 1960s is often attributed to that, which was a further incentive to join the EEC as it then was. I think you know the political arguments that led to the formation of the European Union in its early form in the 1950s, and I think you are sensitive to the need France and Germany had to put centuries of war behind them and find a new way of living together. For all the criticisms of it -let us not talk about the garbage speech Boris Johnson gave today-, the EU as it is has been a blessing rather than a curse, and if your preferred option were to come to pass -the dissolution of the EU- it would merely be replaced in time by another trading bloc with or without the 'political union' just as the UK in time will realise that 'standing alone' doesn't make sense and either re-join the EFTA or find some other collective to be part of. For the simple reason that this is how capitalism now works best, not through individual, but through collective and creative partnerships. Do you really think the US is going to scrap the North America Free Trade agreement? The UK can only flourish if it has trade with other countries, I cannot think of a more stupid proposition than leaving a market of 500 million with trade worth more than $200 billion a year for an inferior relationship that by definition will leave the UK poorer, even as it seeks re-entry into the very same market it has just left. The USA cannot thrive as an economy without allowing foreign governments to buy its (colossal, and gowing) debt, to invest in its properties and industries, just as supply chains are now global not national.

But maybe the administrations in the US and UK are begging precisely the question: do we need you? But I think the answer is yes, not no, and that if the US and UK turn inwards the long term costs will be severe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

thx for providing me the appropriate opportunity to use my favorite quote (Stavros hates it)
"democracy is the worst form of government.... except for all the others"
Winston Curchill

---

Nothing wrong with the quote, it is the genocidal racist who made it I don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I was wondering if you could give some examples of how this might work to your benefit. In particular what regulations would you be able to avoid? So you're saying you think your financial sector is going to be more profitable if banks are able to avoid costly regulations in countries that have less stringent regulations? Why is more legislation appropriate in some places but not others and in what ways would your banks be more competitive if the E.U did not restrict their practices?

---

Kim Jon-un didn't write this, he cut and pasted the article from The Sun that I linked in my reply to that post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Kim Jon-un didn't write this, he cut and pasted the article from The Sun that I linked in my reply to that post.

---

Lifting an entire article word for word without attribution? That Kim Jong-un really is a monster.

no. what's the point? we know we're leaving. If anything, the terms of the deal should be subject to referendum.

Or the government should ask the people directly, have consultations, and then put the most popular option to a vote.