This is a fight for liberty not only from the Imperial zealots from Brussels but from our own corrupt and anti-democratic establishment.
However, Hammond and those of his ilk may be dissappointed by the masters they yearn to serve so slavishly in Brussels. It's emerging that they don't want us back. Not only do they not want Nigel Farage back in the EP in July, at a time when they will be contending with a surge of grass-roots democracy throughout Europe challenging the cozy and corrupt chumocracy, but they don't want a divided and disruptive UK in which more than 20 million voters now regard the EU as more lowly than a snake's belly.
While Hammond has provoked the question of whether he is in government for the good of the people or as the tool of the globalist corporates that would no doubt reward him well when he has outlived his use, he cannot be so sure that the EU will actually accept the extension of Article 50. And this could end Brexit. For if the EU reject a request for an extension May could be forced both by Parliament and the grey men of the deep State to cancel Article 50 altogether - Britain's unilateral right. A second referendum to reverse the first would then doubtless be ordered, this time with all sources of funding for 'Leave' neutered and an even greater official bias and advantage for 'Remain' engineered .
And after that, I fear that Britain would collapse into anarchy. Feelings are too high. The just anger of the 17.4m would spill, and we would all lose from it. Gisela Stuart writes that a General Election may be the only way to resolve the stalemate - a Brexit election, with Brexit allegiance rather than party defining the candidates. As she writes
(Dominic Grieve) is far from alone and the arguments used more than a century ago to deny the working class the franchise have returned to disenfranchise them over Brexit. Instead, Parliament is changing procedure in order to get an outcome that MPs feel they can’t get in any other way. But rules exist for a reason. In times of crisis they define the known parameters to resolve disputes and reach consensus. Starting to tear up the rule book is the path to anarchy.THE TIDE IS TURNING
The Raedwald blog looks as if it increasingly represents public opinion in the UK. A bang up to date COMRES poll finds -
- 50% say NO to a second referendum, only 40% say YES
- 42% OPPOSE the Robbins-Selmayr treaty, 26% support it
- 74% think politicians are out of touch with the mood of the country, only 10% think otherwise
However, the poll also finds one incredibly strong common view -
The country is split down the middle over almost every aspect of Brexit, with one notable exception: two thirds of voters say that when Brexit is complete, “the UK should try to become the lowest tax, business-friendliest country in Europe, focused on building strong international trade links”. This is also the majority-held view across all age groups (18-34 56%, 35-54 60%, 55+ 77%) and political affiliations (including 54% of Labour voters).And that's the future. Internationalist not globalist. Hammond is the past, and is backing a dying horse. Don't let him throw the nation's wealth away backing a loser.
53 comments:
Its hardly representative but it was interesting to see that there is no majority for No Deal. Also that the majority want an extension to Art 50 and it is 45%/44% for leave/remain respectively.
Remove the don't knows and that becomes 51% Leave 49% remain, +/- 3% at the 95% confidence limit. No significant change from the 2016 result.
I too would prefer a deal - take the backstop, the military / security stuff and one or two other bits from the WA and the rest of it could be cut-and-pasted into a treaty that everyone could agree. However, the EU won't do it - so Clean Brexit is the only alternative option.
Remove the don't knows and that becomes 51% Leave 49% remain, +/- 3% at the 95% confidence limit. No significant change from the 2016 result. Raed
Indeed, which seems to indicate that all those pronouncements about people switching sides ...perhaps if the pollsters had renamed the 'don't know' answer as 'a plague on both your houses' option the result might have been different.
Change the record, Raed.
These conspiracy-victimhood whinges get rather repetitive.
There are 66 million people in this country and only 17 million voted Leave. Of those, by no means all of them are brextremists, and many of them hardly care at all.
Only a relative few are as fixated as you.
There are also three million fellow Europeans resident here who were denied a vote.
Why should Parliament not take into consideration the whole country, even if the Tories will not?
Uhm, of those 66 million a million or so are still sucking at the teat, and a few millions more haven't mastered reading yet, even if they're getting to grips with the potty.
And only an idiot utterly blind to the facts keeps repeating the same false, untrue and inaccurate rubbish time and time again.
Were you sick the day they did numbers at school?
Feeding the troll, Raedwald. Suggest you don't reply until he/she ceases to be anonymous. Paid?
Hammond can says what he likes - I'm not sure the numbers are there in the house to revoke Article 50.
Raed, you are making irrational assumptions about that poll.
Not many people would be more pro-EU than me, yet my preference is not for another vote. Neither is Owen Jones's for goodness' sake.
What such people want is a sensible deal with our largest soon-to-be external market and with our cultural siblings. That absolutely does not mean that we would join the mouth-foamers in their rage, if there did happen to be a second vote, does it?
Of course resigned people, including Remain backers, want exit over and done with as soon as possible, as one would an amputation, say.
Your case is build on soap suds.
Anon, had the result been stay that would have been it. The people have spoken etc
It was leave and you don't like it. Fine, I wouldn't expect you to. But you're trying to claim that the referendum is somehow invalid because the result wasn't to your liking. Rationalise it however you want but that's what you're saying.
The government was very careful to ensure the referendum was legitimate when drafting the legislation for it. Of course they were as they expected a vote to stay (which is the only reason it was held).
I can, of course, see that leaving will not be easy and be beset with all sorts of problems. But I cannot see why it should cause a political or even less any sort of constitutional issues. I don't know about anybody else, but that it seems to be raising issues as to the very basis of the democratic process in thid country tells me all I need to know.
@Mark it has just come on the wire that the Tory supporters of a 2nd referendum are launching a campaign for 'the people to have the final say'. Tory campaign for second referendum launched
Conservative supporters of a second EU referendum have launched a “Right to Vote” campaign, as new figures suggested that a majority of voters in Tory seats want the public to have the final say on Brexit, the Press Association reports. Analysis of polls involving more than 6,700 voters suggested that majorities in nine out of 10 Conservative-held constituencies back a so-called “people’s vote”. Conservative MP Phillip Lee, who resigned as a minister in Theresa May’s government last year over Brexit, said that Tory support for a fresh poll was “underestimated” and was “growing fast” among the party’s MPs
"There are 66 million people in this country and only 17 million voted Leave. Of those, by no means all of them are brextremists, and many of them hardly care at all."
Fine, on that principle, we can reverse every single thing that the Blair Government did, indeed every single thing any government has ever done I suspect. No government has had even approaching a majority of the electorate behind it, let alone the entire population (which of course include lots of people plus children not eligible to vote) so all governments are invalid then, right?
Or does your principle only apply to votes that you lost?
Had we left the discussion over financial agreement until after trade negotiations were completed we wouldn't be in this predicament right now. The greed-and-need of the EU was never as clearly illustrated as by their grubbiness and haste to resolve the money issues first. I don't recall any 'difficulties' over resolving them either.... funny, that.
As for the % of for/against etc I am always suspicious of of polling results that are supposed to reflect .gov opinion. They are (imho) levered either by the question or by the demograph and tend to be at least 10% in favour of the sought-for answers. They try not to be blatantly wrong - unlike some we've seen - but they are definitely not to be taken as gospel.
I don't know what Anon is on about when he quotes "66 million potential voters" either and the claim that the EU are our largest external market is suspect (Rotterdam effect) and that Europe are our 'cultural siblings' is completely laughable. Never heard of Canada, Australia, America or any other predominently English-speaking countries? Even those aside, I haven't heard from any country that has specifically stated they won't trade with the UK because of Brexit. Distance, in this New World, is of zero significance when talking trade.
But, as ever, we're treated as fools by the media and lied to them on every aspect of Europe and Brexit in particular. If we want to move forward we need to break the hold the media have on us.
The next time Parliament votes on anything to do with the EU, ban anyone with a vested, or financial, interest or connection with the EUSSR, from voting. That includes the Kinnocks, Clegg and Clark plus others who put their own financial affairs before those of the people they pretend to serve.
In any case, many of those MPs voting should not be allowed to do do. How many of them sought selection in the general election the year after the referendum results and gave assurances that they would support the views of the electorate in the Brexit negotiations? How many of them, once elected, immediately began to destroy those negotiations? These people lied to be elected - but then, they are politicians, so no real surprise there - and therefore obtained obscenely huge salaries and expenses through fraud. I'm not a lawyer, but to me, it appears they have committed the offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception, a criminal matter which can lead to arrest and a term of imprisonment. There is no likelihood of that happening, but perhaps in the next general election, they can end up with jobs where each sentence is ended with, "Would you like fries with that?"
Mark. Where did I claim that the referendum was "invalid"? (The HIgh Court is actually considering that very thing, incidentally, so I won't pre-judge).
There is a case to follow its result, and for the UK to leave the EU. There are competing cases for other actions, which I have not addressed in any detail.
However, the people were NOT asked what the post-exit relationship with the EU should be, and anything that Cameron might have said was only binding on HIS now-dissolved government.
Parliament is ALWAYS free to change its mind in the light of new evidence.
Respect the centuries-old British institutions. Or do you hate them, the essence of our nation?
"Parliament Alone Is The Law"
Perhaps so Jack but if the result were to rejoin what is stopping another referendum two more years down the line ad nausea?
Would remainers accept another leave vote any more than the first? If it was to rejoin would they shut it down as we absolutely know they would have done with a stay vote in 2016?
We can't reverse the result, we would have to rejoin on far more onerous terms. I believe Tusk et al have made this crystal clear. Would any sort of rejoin campaign admit this? (The EU wasn't particularly helpful in 2016 was it. Why would they help, could they help in another campaign. Maybe they would be hostile and not want us back. Has anybody considered that?) How would project fear work this time round?
Damage has been done, a lot of damage has been done and as a leaver, I really don't think that damage has been done by us ( Well I would say that wouldn't I).
Perhaps so Jack but if the result were to rejoin what is stopping another referendum two more years down the line ad nausea?-Mark
I agree entirely and was against the plebis-cide, any referendum on Constitutional matters, from the start (and that includes the one that took us into the Common Market). I- despite being 'remain'- hope there isn't another referendum, two wrongs not making a right.
Hey, Raed. remember what you were saying about localism?
Now, here's an idea:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/semi-brexit-england-wales-leaving-eu-solution
What's not to like?
Anon, I'm perfectly happy with the 2016 result. I think we were asked about the ongoing relationship. The EU is the customs union, single market etc and the question was stay or leave. Leave means leave doesn't it.
"There are 66 million people in this country and only 17 million voted leave". What are you implying then?
May's deal would be an international treaty wouldn't it which has no get out clause that could be used (As I understand it). Could a future parliament simply repeal it?
What makes you think I hate "The essence of our nation". How many times do people have to say this. We want to be subject to the institutions that have served us so well for so many centuries, not alien ones of dubious pedigree.
Jack, no referendum took us into the Common Market. Heath signed up without asking the people, as he knew that if asked, the people would say no. He was also happy to throw the UK's fishing industry under the bus to secure his deal, as the fishermen had too few votes to cause him discomfort.
@ mr anon
“There are 66 million people in this country and only 17 million voted Leave. Of those, by no means all of them are brextremists, and many of them hardly care at all”.
There are 66 million people in this country and only 16 million voted remain. Of those, by no means all of them are remoaners, like yourself, and many of them hardly care at all.
“However, the people were NOT asked what the post-exit relationship with the EU should be”. True.
However, the people were not asked pre- Nice, pre- Maastricht or pre- Lisbon what the relationship would be...were they?
Jack, no referendum took us into the Common Market. Heath signed up without asking the people
You are of course right, although perhaps a little unnecessarily pedantic. I was referring to the 1975 plebis-cide that confirmed our membership of the EC/CM when 67% voted to 'remain' -as an aside still the largest 'democratic majority' despite the claims of Leavers.
"We want to be subject to the institutions that have served us so well for so many centuries, not alien ones of dubious pedigree."
So accept the paramount one, the supremacy of Parliament then.
Look, we are not part of the US, yet have their bases on our soil. That is what happens in an interconnected world, with accommodation to great powers. There will have to be some with the mighty EU too.
The Leave campaigns' real intention was to use the UK as a pawn to bring about the collapse of the EU, whatever it did to our people IMO. Look who the paymasters are: billionaire US supremacists, such as Robert Mercer.
The creeping, faux-patriot, yankee-thralls here could at least be honest.
Two things, firstly, 56% of 18-34's want low tax economy, that's good news .
Secondly, anon.....Europe, cultural siblings? I think that would be the Anglosphere.
Anon at 9.24. You mention "our cultural siblings." I hope you mean this https://www.canzukinternational.com?
Thud, that was only one of the three things in that question. Maybe the other two are what persuaded them? Who knows?
That's the thing about questions, isn't it?
Whatever, it's like this. A bunch of drunks on a 747 had a show of hands, as to whether they should be allowed to get off at an unscheduled airport. They won by one hand, and even then, only after the plane's drinks had been spiked with loony-juice too. They then claim that the whole plane voted for every single passenger to be shoved out of the door at 40,000 feet over Luton, and with no parachutes either.
Parliament will see that sense prevails, I suspect.
Anon, Christ on a bike man!
Why should (should note, not might) our leaving make it collapse? If it relies on our being in to keep it going you can perhaps see why that would make people want to leave (10% keeping 90% afloat. Doesn't sound like a terribly good deal for the 10%).
Perhaps it passed you by the asinine threats emporer Obama made during the 2016 campaign.
I have no issues with parliamentary sovereignty but in the 2016 referendum didn't they pass the decision back to the people with a promise to respect the result? (This promise reiterated in the 2017 election manifestos of the main parties)
Having 'No Deal' on the table is the only way we will get the EU to agree to a deal worth having. We either leave on WTO rules (no deal) and negotiate a deal afterwards, by far the best option, or we prepare to leave on No Deal while trying to negotiate with the EU before we leave. Removing the No Deal option from the table (can they? isn't it set in law?) means a terrible deal which will ensure us being sucked back inside the EU at a later date meanwhile being severely punished by the EU. They wish to take everything worthwhile from us, our manufacturers, the City financial sector, our currency, our technical expertise, they want to completely destroy us - why would we sign up to that?
Anon--glad to see things are getting to you --you treasonous puke.
Ketch--Remain scum Tory MPs announcing a campaign to piss on democracy. All hot air. And of course you wouldn't have given anybody a choice. Because that is the kind you are.
And don't anybody pin it to polls. Most if not all are weaponised by the scum of the left and remain. Even this one that Radders likes. Hell --how credible is it that all the lies and oh-so-fucking-superior ego and dirty tricks of the remainiacs/Treason May/the EU itself have caused no change in most voters. Tripe
“Not only do they not want Nigel Farage back in the EP in July, at a time when they will be contending with a surge of grass-roots democracy throughout Europe challenging the cozy and corrupt chumocracy, but they don't want a divided and disruptive UK in which more than 20 million voters now regard the EU as more lowly than a snake's belly.”
That’s the most important thing you’ve said Raedwald. If the populists win substantially in the European elections then which EU are the Remainers going to end up with? Seems the only EU they want is the Merkel-Macron-Juncker version. Wonder how many would still want to Remain in a Salvini-Orban-Farage style EU?
Brexit is still a process, not an event.
Anon said: "Whatever, it's like this. A bunch of drunks . . .". No, it isn't. Your analogy is false in every respect. The ground rules of the Referendum were laid down by the Parliamentary supremacy you invoke to supposedly invalidate the same Referendum. Including the condition of a simple majority winning.
The people decided what relationship we wanted with the EU in 2016. That relationship means leaving the EU treaties in order to enjoy exactly the same relationship with the EU as we have with any other trading partner - trade only, not subjugation.
Parliament has not repealed or modified the 2015 Referendum Act, could not do so retrospectively, and cannot repeal our vote anyway. Only a repeat Leave/Remain referendum has been proposed to do that. But you cannot arbitrarily reject the first without undermining the second and all consequent votes.
(can they? isn't it set in law?) Anon
Uhm I think only the fact we are exiting on the 29.03 is set in law not the manner.
It's looking like a Parliamentary Delegation will have to deal with the EU directly, over the Government's heads - the EU can if it chooses, since that would be constitutionally supreme - then a Private Member's bill would be needed to compel the Government to implement that agreement.
May is a waste of time.
Raed, I'm all for good humour, but maybe your kind words about Ecky echo some which were also once said about the likes of Thomas Mair?
Jack Ketch, Wrong on both, I'm afraid.
The 29th March 2019 date is specified as "exit day" in section 20, subsection 1, in the EU Withdrawal Act 2018. But that is undermined in subsection 4 which states that a Minister may amend the date.
The "manner" was decided in the Referendum - we are to exit (leave) the EU treaties - and Leave was not predicated on a "deal". The supposed necessity of a "deal" is an invention by Remains, which is being used as an excuse to overturn our decision.
Hence Hammond grovelling to the corporates to assure them that the mis-named "No deal" option will be eliminated.
They're now talking of a 'Peoples Parliament' - objectively ALL parties coming together to find a mutual agreement.
Naturally, and of no surprise whatsoever, the instigators of Brexit (UKIP) would have zero influence/say and, of all the parties currently in Parliament NONE of them stand for the the majority that voted leave.
It's stitch-up after stitch-up and the people will not be fooled by the various efforts to undermine their will to leave the EU.
Anon is digging his own hole in his/her supposed defense of Remain - I've yet to hear one cohesive argument for remaining - only petulant and unjustified responses to the many reasons for leaving. His/her use of 'mighty EU' in a previous post has to be the most laughable!
Dave, only a majority of those who voted voted Leave, not even a majority of the electorate, let alone one of the whole people, of whom they were just 26%.
The Government and Parliament have a duty of CARE towards ALL the people of this country, irrespective of how they voted. So if it appears that a given course of action would harm them significantly, then they have a duty to avoid that.
Leaving the Treaties honours the referendum result and that is that.
Finding a non-harmful arrangement, with the very powerful union on our doorstep after that discharges that second, overriding duty.
What is so hard to grasp?
Anon, in the context of us leaving, what does "very powerful" union mean?
If a dwarf has got a giant's bollocks in his hands, he has the stronger negotiating position.
They get massive payments from us, access to our fishing grounds and a current account surplus with us of around £80 billion.
What would a "non-harmful" arrangement look like, this of course meaning non-harmful to us.
If we "crash out" the first two disappear. The magnitude of the third in no small measure is a facet of us being inside their customs union. I can see why they are so keen to keep us inside, I just can't see why MPs are so desperate to.
They can, of course, apply tariffs to UK goods entering but we can remove what are their tariffs on third country good entering the UK. There is a lot we buy from them we can get cheaper elsewhere. I don't see how British trade can't, won't rebalance itself away from the EU, and I suspect this might not take too long
We are not in a weak position, and it is not "little Engladerism" or "dreams of Empire" to believe this.
If you were in their position, what would your negotiating stance be? If it were me, to retain the advantages I currently have I really don't know what I could offer in return.
Of course, I could threaten, shout, scream and beat my chest expecting the spineless Vichy jackals to surrender. But what if they don't. Said jackals could end up in this position by default.
You're quite right, it's not difficult to grasp at all.
mr anon
And a minority of those that voted voted remain.
Would you have all the Electorate forced, at the point of a gun, to the polling stations, to give the result that YOU desire?Please.
As Raedwald has said many times, not all of the population are entitled to vote and that’s a good thing.
Harm them. Following the wishes of the majority, in a democracy, could hardly be called harmful.
Going down the road of overturning or ignoring the majority could, I believe, lead to a very dark place indeed.
Anon keeps banging on about 'the majority that voted to leave'. I don't recall any political party that took office against other voters wishes actually enacting anything they had concerns over (like tax reductions for example) - like any losing side we took it for granted that 'our' wishes came secondary to the majority that won - just as, if Remain had won I wouldn't be bleating like a spoiled child a.k.a Anon demanding action to pacify our needs.
As others illustrate, the UK has a massive winning hand in any negotiations but the media (in particular) refuse to inform the public as they know full well that public opinion would slaughter our politicians for wasting such a good poker hand.
All we hear is 'crashing out', and 'cliff edge' with all contrary voices - respectable voices at that - daring to decry the alarmist stance either being sidelined (media again) or ignored. It's not as if it's only our own side that are calling out the alarmists over a no deal so-called catastrophe - even foreign businesses acknowledge they will cope without difficulty and are also keen to maintain good trading relations with us.
It is only the EU that want to manipulate the trading issue to their advantage - I'm quite sure they're getting massive grief from their own industry leaders and Merkel is on a VERY sticky wicket given recent economic figures let alone her position on immigration. This is the POLITICAL side of the EU - not the side that should be representing the people/businesses of Europe - their concern and interest is purely for their own political positioning.
When did you last hear a major European manufacturer speaking about how 'desperate' they were for the UK to remain?
How ironic, that the EU-haters describe the EU Parliament as a Rubber Stamping Agency - it is not, it threw out the US attempt at bullying with TTIP for instance - but want the UK sovereign Parliament to be *exactly* that. They want it meekly to assent, to everything, that a Tory government held to ransom by the DUP and by the ERP presents. So much for taking back control eh?
Well done, anon!
Clearly your task has never been to build bridges, change minds, profer intelligent evidence, engage in creative dialogue and generally to establish cogent arguements against Brexit
I have to conclude that your sole aim is to maintain and strengthen a polarity of opinion, foment greater discord between Leave and Remain, exploit fractures and offer yourself as an archetype Remainer - ignorant of the reality, careless with facts, incapable of logical thought.
You haven't taken a name. Clearly you're not quite British, or at least English isn't your first language. You're very good, but unconscious human instinct is better. I'd guess Asian with a French parent?
You have however enhanced the google-rank of this blog, raising it higher in search engine rankings and giving it precedence over even some government sites. Many thanks!
Merkel is on a VERY sticky wicket given recent economic figures let alone her position on immigration. -Dave G
Only a few months ago commentators here and elsewhere in the Scriblussphere were assuring us Merkel was finished due to her stand on immigration/Brexit/AfD/Euro/Germany's economy etc etc etc, and that not just the one time- a couple of times since. I cautioned then and now that the only thing that will shift Merkel (and I'm not a particular fan) before the next election when she isn't going to stand anyways, will be something that ,no doubt, appears inconsequential if not asinine to the rest of the world (the Diesel Skandal might yet do it). I would suggest no one who seriously wants to know anything about Germany, and particularly German politics, believes anything they read on Breitbart, nor the Daily Heil and ExceSS.[btw I believe Ed Spalton recommends http://www.german-foreign-policy.com ].
Raed, even an all-out shooting war with the EU would not satisfy the denture-grinders who often frequent the various threads, would it? So bridge-building with them is no option.
I've already made clear that I'm not after a second vote - however entertaining that might be - but they're not content, and never will be.
Let's see what the NCA throws up on Banks, Cummings et al, shall we?
"England Realises To Its Horror That Rest Of Europe Now Sees It Exactly As It Sees Yorkshire - Shock"
Mr/Ms Anon, I've always tried to go into an argument - especially about politics - from the position that the other person *could* be right, and being prepared to back down and have them change my point of view. This drives my wife nuts, (so a win-win, really).
Throughout the referendum, I felt sure some of the experts would come up with something to make me waiver. In fact, if I'm honest, I almost wanted them to; remaining was the easier option (in the short term) and certainly some of the Project Fear stuff had me wobbling (at least until I could look deeper). But ultimately, that seemed to have been all they had: The disasters that leaving the EU would bring.
So Anon, if you are still reading, since you're clearly not afraid to share your thoughts and opinions, perhaps you'd be so kind? Could you give me a few (say, 5?) good reasons why we should be in the EU. I don't mean 'free trade' or 'they're our friends', I want things that give us great benefit. That we can *only* get/give/have by being in the EU. That are worth the negatives - as I currently see them - like financials and lack of accountability (etc) and absolutely couldn't get/give/have whilst being outside?
This isn't a trick, I'm not going to shout you down, I actually want you to be able to do it, and want to agree with you! I've asked so many people (usually the more vociferous ones, hence asking you) this same question over the years, and no-one seems willing or able to oblige.
Thanks!
That we can *only* get/give/have by being in the EU. -Icey
Is there one? As a remainer I can't see one-with the proviso that that 'only' is extended to include "we had politicians who could actually see past their expenses accounts and party loyalties".
I too have pondered this question long and hard and have come to the conclusion that it's a bit like with cars. You don't really appreciate the benefits of driving a top of the range German car until you are forced by circumstances to trade it in for a held-together-by-bodge-tape 40+ year old Austin Allegro. Sure they are both just cars and both will get you where you want to go, and there is a valid argument that by driving that Allegro you are not spending a small fortune on that BMW which means you aren't enslaved to the bank/HP agreement (but perhaps in servitude to the garage and eventual financial 'death' by 'nickel & diming' as the Americans call it when your car needs constant small repairs). And of course by driving an Austin you will always have that heady freedom-feeling that comes from driving such a masterpiece of BRITISH engineering. You are the sovereign of the road and the world is your oyster. No longer are you condemned to hog the Autobahn fast lane doing 240Kmh and stressed to the max. No, oh no, now you can enjoy the scenery (probably whilst waiting for the tow truck) as you motor regally, albeit sedately, along our deserted British A roads, free and independent, not chained to rip off 'annual service' charges, truly king of the road.
Can one take an Allegro and make a really decent car out of it? I'm sure one can, if one is prepared to rebuild it from the ground up, fixing all the design flaws, putting a new (probably German) engine in it, welding all the rust holes shut and stopping all the leaks.
Broadly, the EU is self-evidently the most civilised, enlightened project, that this tragic, blood-drenched planet has ever seen, Icey.
There has never been anything like it - a diverse union of willing consent, that is - it is quite unprecedented. It's very much a work-in-progress, naturally.
However, I think that attempting to damage or to weaken it is an act of the utmost dark-hearted, primitive, tribal cynicism.
Happy?
Jack,I take it that's an argument for remaining.
If so, could you translate into actualities pertinent to the question in hand.
But staying in your universe, that top of the range German car would have who knows what in the boot.
I would have to pay for this car whatever I was told to, and they could change the financial terms (and the insurance) whenever they wanted. I could never drive anything else. It would track wherever I go and be an integral part of the Euro social credit system.
It may well have illegal S/W yet to be uncovered and it would be no more than
average reliable. And there is somebody else's shitty old fiat, Renault and seat I'd also be obliged to and in future some old Yugo and cliff knows a what else.
If that was the case, I really would prefer an allegro (not that I've seen one for donkeys years).
If you really believe that this country is a washed up banana republic then I can see why you want to hide from the world. Not sure why you think Germany would make such a kindly master but there you go.
Don't know about anybody else but I actually believe in this country and believe we can do a lot better than the EU.
But as icypurplepants says, let's hear an actual argument for staying, not why this country is so shite or why we'll return to the stone age if we leave. I've been waiting for one for 25 years.
Anon, we just want to leave. That dark hearted, primitive tribal cynicism is why it's failing and what we want to get away from before it collapses completely.
Jack,I take it that's an argument for remaining
-mark
More an allegro-y for not leaving than remaining. Can we do 'better' than the EU? Maybe, but unlikely. More likely would be we might do as well as we did in the EU...IF...and its a big 'IF' we are prepared; to pay the price, to take the pain and to swap one Master for another.
Who has said that the UK is not leaving Mark? Not me.
Anon, fair enough but could you please clarify re "dark hearted, primitive tribal cynicism".
Are you referring to within the EU or without?
Hi Anon,
thank you for your comment. I don't mean to sound patronising, you have come back with more than most people I've asked, but I am not actually sure if that is a good argument for remaining in the EU rather than an opinion about the value of the existence of it. Besides which, I disagree, and think that all of that could still be the case without us.
But I get that it is your feeling, and I get that there are many millions of people in this country which want to be a part of that, but now that we have finally, actually been asked, the majority have now rejected that vision. So for as long as we can all ourselves a democracy, that's what we have to do.
It doesn't mean that the EU is now unable to amble off into the sunny uplands that you describe without us. Quite the opposite, if anything, it can put its foot down and move quicker. I also don't think that us leaving is an attempt "to damage or weaken it". Yes, our leaving might do both, but that is an unintending consequence and one, surely, something as large as the EU will be able to counter-balance.
I do not believe there are many people in this country who would actually want to do the peoples of Europe any harm whatsoever. We are close enough emotionally, physically and financially (for want of a better word) to be extremely liable to suffer the fallout of any EU failings, so it is not in our interests that it fails. EXCEPT if that becomes the only way we are allowed to leave. That being the case, I would see it as a direct act of aggression (or submission) either by them, or by our elected politicians - depending on where the responsibility falls.
But I also still do not see that your utopia is worth us paying more than £10bn per year to be a part of, at the expense of democracy. This is the whole point. If we leave now, we will again have the right to determine if we want to go back in (heaven forbid). If we do not leave now, we will never again have that right offered to us. And many other laws, rights and privileges will continue to be skewed against us, to the benefit of others.
As Mark said, I too "believe in this country and believe we can do a lot better", though I would change the end to "outside the EU."
Who claimed that the EU is a utopia?
Not me.
However, it's war-free, its people's Human Rights are protected, its pro-rata murder rate is less than one-sixth of the US's, and there are quite a few other good things about it.
I'm more than content with that, and I'd like to lend a hand with improving it further, heck, there's plenty to do.
Post a Comment