OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[AngryRam]

Ramanag- you mean well but folks are never going to see it the way you do. For me-
1. people on both sides don't have a full understanding and never will have. The politicians can't tell you, cos they don't know. No one can even say the out come of leaving until negotiations are concluded, so how can you debate that? Most folks looked at their own lives and what the EU means/does to them. I didn't like the way it's going politically and the surge in migrants locally effecting jobs/houses etc.
2.37% does not represent the people, but the 34% remain doesn't either? It's not our fault that those who didn't vote, didn't.
Every election has a cut off point. It was reached and that's that. Had the vote been the other way, would you be arguing the same fact?
3. All politicians tell lies. If you have a brain, you know that.
Personally, if I was you, have a look at project fear more than your usual victim of Grove and the NHS, or Farage's poster.
We have been lied to since day one. My own parents still fume to this day how Heath conned everyone.
We joined a common market, not a "political union" of unification. Back than it was 9, quite powerful countries, the idea was sound. Since then, only Darth Vader and the Emperor were missing, as the Empire stretched out it's hand.

Like...

[AngryRam]

4. It simply isn't fair to hark back to the seventies to suggest that, because of what it has become, that everyone was 'conned' about the Common Market. You say yourself, 'back then...the idea was sound', if that was the case then you can't have it both ways. I'm no more in favour of increased bureaucracy and federalisation than you are but, as I'm sick and tired of repeating...it is much easier to change something you are a part of than something you exclude yourself from.

Arghhhh !!! I give up !

[ramAnag]

Arghhhh !!! I give up !

Result!

[AngryRam]

Not if the issue is...'we shouldn't be imposing this level of change on any country without being clear exactly what we mean by it'...they're not.

Arghhhh !!! So why should we have been subjected to staying without knowing extactly what it means??>
It's a non question becuase it is unanswerable either way. Move on, it has no relevance now.

[Trickytreesreds]

And my misery is complete, not only have I quoted Ed Milliband today but I have now ruined my weekend by realising I am in agreement with, well, one of them.

you love really, baaarmy

[AngryRam]

http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=uW4M4OjFxsbV0whBuaOmRIh4l5k2TGxc

Okay that did not work..

[Gaspode]

Not if the issue is...'we shouldn't be imposing this level of change on any country without being clear exactly what we mean by it'...they're not.

Conversely, you can't be clear on what the consequences of staying in the EU are either (and please don't claim to have a better idea than what will happen if we leave - the EU is in an incredibly fragile state at the moment - pretty much anything could happen (including (but not limited to) referendum in other states; far-right governments; escalation of the migrant crisis; one (or more) of the Euro countries going bust; etc; etc....)) - As Angry has said, it's a non-question as there is no certainty - in or out.....

By the way - I'll state (yet again for the avoidance of doubt) your assertion that 63% of the electorate didn't approve leaving is (to use a technical term) bobbins - they were given the chance to vote - anyone who didn't vote cannot be genuinely considered to be against the outcome - and there's also no way you would argue on those terms had you got the result you favoured, so please don't use such as a justification now....

[Trickytreesreds]

Tricky...don't you think your first sentence is just a tad patronising?

To take your other points in order.

1. Then what on earth was the point of the referendum. If all you say about the public and politicians is true what was the point?

2. I have never argued that 34% is more representative than 37%. It would be insane to do so, but the fact is that a massive level of change may be about to be imposed on our country without the approval of 63% of the electorate. How is that right?

3. I know politicians lie - as I think Roger suggested...I've seen their lips moving. Which bit of that means I have to continue to accept the situation?

4. It simply isn't fair to hark back to the seventies to suggest that, because of what it has become, that everyone was 'conned' about the Common Market. You say yourself, 'back then...the idea was sound', if that was the case then you can't have it both ways. I'm no more in favour of increased bureaucracy and federalisation than you are but, as I'm sick and tired of repeating...it is much easier to change something you are a part of than something you exclude yourself from.

I wasn't trying to be patronizing, if you thought I was, then I apologise.

1.The point of the referendum was, enough folks had been complaining for long enough for UKIP to come into the frame and seriously threaten the Tories. Cameron thought it was a vote winner and it was(again emphasising my comment of MP's only in it for themselves in everything). Cameron messed up. He thought he could grab a few million UKIPers with no come back, he was wrong. Make no mistake, the bottom end of the ladder was moaning, the elite were not listening and thought they knew it all.
They tried to play the population/manipulate/con/scare it. It failed.
The fact is, no one had ever asked the population if it was happy, so a vote was long over due.
2. It is only right, because the voting system says it is. Had we not had a vote, then the voting majority wanting out, would still be seething at the situation. Is that right? Labour/Lib Dems/ SNP wouldn't want you to have a vote. How patronizing is that, that they think you don't want/need/should have one?
3. what do you want to do? Change the system? Revolution/dictator/committee run? Politics in this country has gone down hill, since the day working people stooped working their way into politics. I know you don't like Farage, but at least he had a job and knew what he was talking about. Could Cameron/Milliband etc say the same? They are crooks in the main and aligned to backers and fund'ers. The Tories and Labour have monopolised that for years. Cameron's supporters like the IMF have since been exposed for the liars they are. They all piss in the same pot.
4. Why isn't it fair? I have been saying since the start of this thread, that this was all a set up from day one. Heath knew, he lied. He knew the electorate would never go for a European Union, so the common market was born(EEC). the first step on the ladder. On paper it looked great. All it was, was a free trade agreement between 9 very rich countries. Every ones happy.
That morphed into the EU and several treaties later(with no consultation to us) encompassed 28 countries and is still growing.
Make no mistake about it, the goal has always been to create a super state. The picture earlier, of the EU leading the medals table says it all. As disgusting a hi jack as it is.
Don't believe me, listen to the ex leader- www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8M1T-GgRU

[ramAnag]

Gaspode...63% of the electorate haven't approved the concept of us leaving the EU...that is, quite simply, a fact. How the other 29% might have voted is unknown and I have never suggested otherwise.

If the matter of 'in' or 'out' is, as you and Angry seem to be suggesting, a 'non question'...what was the referendum all about?

[BaaLocks]

Arghhhh !!! So why should we have been subjected to staying without knowing extactly what it means??>
It's a non question becuase it is unanswerable either way. Move on, it has no relevance now.

You told me to stay so here goes.

It's not to suggest that we understand all the consequences (I admit, I have used that phrase previously in this discussion - my error so wanted to clarify) but that we understand all the actions that will come about as a result. We did not know Claude Davis was going to be quite as comically bad as he was but we knew he would cost £3.5m. We don't know if selling Chris Martin and replacing him with someone with a turning circle smaller than a fully laden juggernaut will improve our league position but we can work out how much we will get for him.

For our glorious exit from the EU nobody can say if it will be an economically beneficial decision or whether we will be able to strike a better trade deal with the US than expected. But we can say what the key points will be - freedom of movement, trade agreements needed, etc. That is 'all' I am asking for, not a crystal ball that says we will all be 16.73% better off in eight years time.

As for the point of whether us horrible doubters (I don't even call myself a Remainer, I merely am unhappy with the process - indeed, if I could see some concrete actions to support I might even have reason to become a Leaver) would be calling a different tune had the vote gone the other way, I am sure many would. It's not a wrong thing to be unhappy with the outcome, it's a wrong thing to either be unhappy or happy without foundation or support for your decision.

[ramAnag]

Apology accepted.

1. So we had a referendum because of a party that can manage one seat at a General Election led by a man who can't get himself elected at a General Election and a PM who wanted to settle internal party divisions but got it all wrong. Brilliant reason!

2. If a yes/no referendum can be won by a vote of little more than a third then is it fit for purpose?

3. Completely agree with your sentiments about professional politicians born or 'groomed' into the world of politics. Completely disagree that Farage is a good example of doing things differently...he's been a banker and a politician who couldn't get elected to the UK Parliament so, largely through public inertia, got himself elected to something he only ever wanted to destroy.

4. I'm aware of your theory about the creation of a 'mixed race super state' but Ted Heath...really? A more conservative Conservative it is difficult to imagine. You can't blame him, or the voters, for what you perceive as having happened over forty years on.

[Trickytreesreds]

You told me to stay so here goes.

It's not to suggest that we understand all the consequences (I admit, I have used that phrase previously in this discussion - my error so wanted to clarify) but that we understand all the actions that will come about as a result. We did not know Claude Davis was going to be quite as comically bad as he was but we knew he would cost £3.5m. We don't know if selling Chris Martin and replacing him with someone with a turning circle smaller than a fully laden juggernaut will improve our league position but we can work out how much we will get for him.

For our glorious exit from the EU nobody can say if it will be an economically beneficial decision or whether we will be able to strike a better trade deal with the US than expected. But we can say what the key points will be - freedom of movement, trade agreements needed, etc. That is 'all' I am asking for, not a crystal ball that says we will all be 16.73% better off in eight years time.

As for the point of whether us horrible doubters (I don't even call myself a Remainer, I merely am unhappy with the process - indeed, if I could see some concrete actions to support I might even have reason to become a Leaver) would be calling a different tune had the vote gone the other way, I am sure many would. It's not a wrong thing to be unhappy with the outcome, it's a wrong thing to either be unhappy or happy without foundation or support for your decision.

I'd agree. I would be happy with controlled migration(visas). No NHS abuse anymore. The freedom to trade world wide. Control of our territory- fishing/law/human rights/industry, our own currency( I know before someone else says it, ) and not being liable to bail out struggling economies. I don't care about EU policies and direction. I don't care we don't get a vote on it. As long as we aren't liable for their mistakes, I'm a happy bunny.
If they refuse that and want a trade war, then so be it. We have a trade deficit every quarter of £24 billion, they have much more to lose than us.
Quick recap of the predictions still waiting to happen-
Osborns emergency budget
Camerons third world war
Tusks end of western civilisation
Obama's back of the queue
House price crash
Massive job losses
Market crash and recession (FTSE at a current 14 month high)

It's these things that pissed everyone off for vote leave. How many would have voted out had they not been spouting this ****?

[Trickytreesreds]

Apology accepted.

1. So we had a referendum because of a party that can manage one seat at a General Election led by a man who can't get himself elected at a General Election and a PM who wanted to settle internal party divisions but got it all wrong. Brilliant reason!

2. If a yes/no referendum can be won by a vote of little more than a third then is it fit for purpose?

3. Completely agree with your sentiments about professional politicians born or 'groomed' into the world of politics. Completely disagree that Farage is a good example of doing things differently...he's been a banker and a politician who couldn't get elected to the UK Parliament so, largely through public inertia, got himself elected to something he only ever wanted to destroy.

4. I'm aware of your theory about the creation of a 'mixed race super state' but Ted Heath...really? A more conservative Conservative it is difficult to imagine. You can't blame him, or the voters, for what you perceive as having happened over forty years on.

1. not what I'm saying ramanag. 4.5 million voted for UKIP in the general election, There was reason behind that. Cameron knew it and most were from his party. He thought he could lure some of them back, with a promise of a referendum and he was right.
( I will point out that that UKIP amassed more votes than SNP/Plaid Cymru/Lib Dems combined, yet got 1 seat. That in itself is an affront of democracy. As for Farage, he was out manoeuvred by Tory cheating who spent way more than they was allowed. They are still under investigation for it)
2. Maybe not, but its the way we do it at the moment, see above.
3. He got himself elected? How daft a statement is that? The people of the country in the European elections put him there.
He was there because he was saying what they felt. Surprised by your reasoning with that one.
4. Ted Heath said it. He knew and he wasn't alone. We ( Well in my case my parents) were all conned.

1962
HAROLD MACMILLAN made the first, failed, attempt to get Britain to join the Common Market. The move was eventually vetoed by the French President, Charles de Gaulle, in 1963.
However, even Eurosceptical Cabinet ministers such as Enoch Powell were taken in by Macmillan's protestations that entry was merely about the organisation of a free-trade bloc.
In fact, as the Treaty of Rome that founded the Common Market pointed out, the goal was of an 'ever closer union' economically and, more crucially, politically. That last element was kept very quiet.
1970-1972
THE Tories' 1970 General Election manifesto promised that Britain would once again negotiate entry to what was by then known as the European Economic Community. TED HEATH did more than negotiate: he took us in. Having said that Britain would join only 'with the full-hearted consent of the British parliament and people', Heath pressed on with entry even though the enabling Bill passed its second reading by only eight votes in the Commons.
The people were never consulted. Heath didn't even tell his Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, that signing the Treaty of Brussels to secure our accession committed us one day to joining a single currency - Sir Alec forced Heath to admit this afterwards.
Heath also said that the common agricultural and fisheries polices would have no adverse effect on our farmers or fishermen. The consistent dwindling of our fleet since 1973 was a direct result of his policy and contrary to what he had promised.


This very fact, makes the vote/current lying pale into insignificance. It was a set up from day one.

[macstheman]

We would love to think we could change the EU from within but between 1971 to date all changes have only increased federalism and control from within in much the same way as any dictator will manipulate the constitution to their own ends. Now, personally I see many benefits in authoritarianism, but I also see many dangers. I see only problems ahead and remain even more confident in our ability to ride any short term storm to become an even stronger nation that we can be proud of and one that many others will envy long term. I would now vote leave and not remain as I did!!

[ramAnag]

Tricky...
1. I know it's not what you're saying...it's what I'm saying.
2. Being 'how we do things at the moment' doesn't make it right...maybe the same thing was said to the Suffragettes.
3. Figure of speech...sorry...point was that we in the UK consistently have the lowest voter turn out at EU elections...usually around the mid 30's...24% in 1999 I believe.
4. Respect your view but disagree with your conclusion.