phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Jun 11, 2017 0:47:57 GMT
Given that you think the above, what have you to say about the "yes" vote in 1975 by a minority of the UK electorate that led to the entire direction of the country being changed, upending hundreds of years of our sovereignty and resulting in the handing over of our sovereignty to a group of countries that don't have the UK national interest as it's number one priority? That was a big con. The voting that took place in the '70s was the thin end of the wedge and we were told that it was purely to ease trading with Europe, and we would still make our own laws Do you think that the public at the time would have agreed to allow Europe to have so much power over us, bearing in mind a lot of the population had fought in WW2 to keep our sovereignity. I for one was overjoyed with Brexit vote. I know it was a slippery slope con. I also voted Brexit. Why would anyone vote for a political union that doesn't have the national interest of the UK as it's number one priority? Why should I vote for a political union that gives us the short end of the stick? I wouldn't pay to join a P2P union and then find out other members of that P2P union are doing better at my expense so why should I vote to pay the EU £8 billion a year and for the EU to prosper at the UK's expense? Germany is the dominating political and economic entity in the EU, last year we had a £25 billion trade deficit with them, for the past two decades we have had a trade deficit with Germany, we pay £8 billion a year for that pleasure. I wouldn't run my P2P portfolio like that, why should I vote to run my country like that?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015 
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 11, 2017 7:29:12 GMT
What have you to say about the "yes" vote in 1975 by a minority of the UK electorate that led to the entire direction of the country being changed, upending hundreds of years of our sovereignty and resulting in the handing over of our sovereignty to a group of countries that don't have the UK national interest as it's number one priority? Well, since the wording of the question is a politically-spun load of complete codswallop... ...and since I didn't say any such thing...
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Jun 11, 2017 19:50:38 GMT
What have you to say about the "yes" vote in 1975 by a minority of the UK electorate that led to the entire direction of the country being changed, upending hundreds of years of our sovereignty and resulting in the handing over of our sovereignty to a group of countries that don't have the UK national interest as it's number one priority? Well, since the wording of the question is a politically-spun load of complete codswallop... I see, so you're saying that it's codswallop that the simple yes/no vote in 1975 led to the entire direction of the country being changed yet you remoan that the Brexit vote was a "simple national yes/no as to whether the entire direction of the country should be changed"? You want it both ways?
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Jun 11, 2017 20:18:20 GMT
Given that you think the above, what have you to say about the "yes" vote in 1975 by a minority of the UK electorate that led to the entire direction of the country being changed, upending hundreds of years of our sovereignty and resulting in the handing over of our sovereignty to a group of countries that don't have the UK national interest as it's number one priority? 1975 - 67.2% yes vote, 64.6% turnout. 43.4% of electorate. 2016 - 51.9% leave vote, 72.2% turnout. 37.5% of electorate. My point, however, was that an individual MP is elected for five years at most. That MP is one of 650 people who vote on legislation. Each individual MP has virtually zero impact. B'sides, very few seats are ever a simply binary choice. I see, more than half of our MPs get less than 50% of the vote in their constituencies, surely you wouldn't label that as "virtually zero impact"?
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Jun 11, 2017 21:08:38 GMT
What have you to say about the "yes" vote in 1975 by a minority of the UK electorate that led to the entire direction of the country being changed, upending hundreds of years of our sovereignty and resulting in the handing over of our sovereignty to a group of countries that don't have the UK national interest as it's number one priority? Well, since the wording of the question is a politically-spun load of complete codswallop... ...and since I didn't say any such thing... You certainly have said such a thing, how about your "5 years in the EEA" suggestion? More than 50% of voters voted to leave, clearly we have voted to leave, we haven't voted for 5 years in the EEA.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 12, 2017 7:58:05 GMT
Well, since the wording of the question is a politically-spun load of complete codswallop... I see, so you're saying that it's codswallop that the simple yes/no vote in 1975 led to the entire direction of the country being changed yet you remoan that the Brexit vote was a "simple national yes/no as to whether the entire direction of the country should be changed"? The bit that's complete codswallop is this bit... ...upending hundreds of years of our sovereignty and resulting in the handing over of our sovereignty to a group of countries that don't have the UK national interest as it's number one priority? You seem to be presupposing that international co-operation is some kind of antagonistic zero-sum game. It really isn't. And, anyway, if the EU is that, then how is it different to other supra-national organisations? NATO? The UN? The many, many others focussed on specific areas? I think it might be fair to say that the "thing" we voted to join back then is different to the "thing" we recently voted to leave. Absolutely. And the UK was very involved in making it from one thing to the other. ...and since I didn't say any such thing... You certainly have said such a thing, how about your "5 years in the EEA" suggestion? More than 50% of voters voted to leave, clearly we have voted to leave, we haven't voted for 5 years in the EEA. That's not the same thing at all. Remember that right now we have 21 months - and ticking down rapidly - to negotiate how we're going to leave the EU without just heading straight to WTO rules. And we're embarking on a period of self-imposed internal political chaos that is going to swallow a big chunk more of that time. "No deal is better than a bad deal" - well, a good deal would be better still, yet we seem intent on totally hamstringing our ability to get that, both by wasting most of the available time and by going into it throwing punches rather than looking to see where the common ground is. When did that EVER work in ANY kind of negotiation? But going back to "How is an MP different to brexit" - apart from the finite term of an MP, the big difference is that an MP's job is to represent their entire constituency, whether they're on the same political side or not. With that in mind, I can't see how a minority government is inherently a bad thing, so long as the government are willing to work with - rather than against - other parties. Most other countries seem to work quite happily with coalitions and power-sharing. When does drawing strictly partisan lines ever achieve more than co-operation? Perhaps some kind of STV within constituencies would produce a more generally acceptable MP - or, just perhaps, it would produce an even more polarised commons, with the mid-ground petering out even more in favour of the two entrenched parties? Is that a good thing?
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Jun 13, 2017 2:16:14 GMT
If you always roll over then you'll always get shafted.
It is the EU who are being antagonistic.
The reason they are being antagonistic is because they don't want us to leave.
One reason they don't want us to leave is because we pay them £8 billion a year for a £60 billion trade deficit.
So they can choose, they can respect our democratic decision to leave and continue to enjoy what for them is a very lucrative trade balance with us.....or they can cut off their noses to spite their faces.
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Jun 13, 2017 2:49:46 GMT
Make your mind up Adrian  Either we're embarking on a period of "self-imposed internal political chaos" or "most other countries seem to work quite happily with coalitions and power-sharing". Given that the Tories and Lib-Dems cosied up quite nicely it seems that that you're selling the UK short in assuming it's only other countries who can do the power-sharing thing. Selling the UK short seems to be a constant characteristic of the typical remoaner
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 13, 2017 7:35:23 GMT
Make your mind up Adrian Either we're embarking on a period of "self-imposed internal political chaos" or "most other countries seem to work quite happily with coalitions and power-sharing". Given that the Tories and Lib-Dems cosied up quite nicely it seems that that you're selling the UK short in assuming it's only other countries who can do the power-sharing thing. My mind is made up, thanks, and there's no dichotomy or contradiction there at all. I've highlighted the bit that I think you may have missed... The current chaos is not due to the possibility of some kind of power-sharing. It's due entirely to the way in which the personalities involved will either not allow that to happen, or will cause it to fail. The two main parties have shifted to their outermost fringes, and can't even manage to maintain internal cordiality or discipline, let alone working with each other. The 2010 coalition was exactly what the country needed at the time, and it worked very well indeed. The minority partner was, inevitably, the scapegoat - but what's happened since shows the reality of the success they made of tempering the wilder fringes. I prefer to refer to it as "reality", thanks. The UK is just one country in a large continent. When you look at the EU as a whole, we are one eighth of the population, one eighth of PPP GDP, and one fiftieth of the land mass. What makes us so special? Apart, of course, from our "them and us" attitude. Europe is us, not them.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jun 13, 2017 10:34:00 GMT
If you always roll over then you'll always get shafted. It is the EU who are being antagonistic. The reason they are being antagonistic is because they don't want us to leave. One reason they don't want us to leave is because we pay them £8 billion a year for a £60 billion trade deficit. So they can choose, they can respect our democratic decision to leave and continue to enjoy what for them is a very lucrative trade balance with us.....or they can cut off their noses to spite their faces. Very nicely summed up, and I agree phil. For the record, I voted OUT, and I hope we stay OUT. The EU is a massively self serving, corrupt & incompetent can of worms and will implode. The Greek Problem anyone? It's not going to go away. I now await a further posting quoting facts & figures which will refute this and so the ping pong will continue apace. 
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jun 13, 2017 13:14:14 GMT
Yep. |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 13, 2017 13:44:07 GMT
|
|
