Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 10:17:04 GMT
I voted leave fully expecting some difficulties in the short term, my vote was made with the best long prospects for our country in mind. I can't imagine any leave voter thought it would be a seamless transition. i don't think anyone realised what a mess May would have made in her negotiations or that other politicians (past and present) would be conspiring to sabotage our exit - an act of treason that has played a big part in the rubbish deal currently on the table. You see Eric, therein lies an issue. The language, use of the words like "treason" because a view differs from yours. There is a very good article in today's Telegraph by Charles Moore (not a rent a mob leftie, certainly). This stood out to me. "MPs owe their first duty to their conscience, their second to their constituents as a whole, and only their third to their political party and its local organisation. This order should be respected." As I have said before, this is why we have an issue in Parliament. A simple Referendum with a binary question then meets Representative democracy, where sitting MPs face A) Their conscience B) Their constituents as a WHOLE C) And then their party. They are not traitors for doing this, it is not an act of treason. I think Eric is referring to people like Blair, Clegg, Cable and Co, who have had meetings with Barnier and given the message that the EU should only offer a bad deal as a means to get a Second Referendum. They have been openly going against the wishes of the public. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 10:28:14 GMT
I voted leave fully expecting some difficulties in the short term, my vote was made with the best long prospects for our country in mind. I can't imagine any leave voter thought it would be a seamless transition. i don't think anyone realised what a mess May would have made in her negotiations or that other politicians (past and present) would be conspiring to sabotage our exit - an act of treason that has played a big part in the rubbish deal currently on the table. You see Eric, therein lies an issue. The language, use of the words like "treason" because a view differs from yours. There is a very good article in today's Telegraph by Charles Moore (not a rent a mob leftie, certainly). This stood out to me. "MPs owe their first duty to their conscience, their second to their constituents as a whole, and only their third to their political party and its local organisation. This order should be respected." As I have said before, this is why we have an issue in Parliament. A simple Referendum with a binary question then meets Representative democracy, where sitting MPs face A) Their conscience B) Their constituents as a WHOLE C) And then their party. They are not traitors for doing this, it is not an act of treason. I used the word treason not because someone's view differs from mine. I used it because I feel a good number of MP's, past and present and from various parties, are deliberately trying to scupper any leave deal to achieve an end goal of ignoring the democratic referendum result and staying in the EU. I think they are working for what they personally want with little regard for their constituents, particularly those whose constituencies had a clear leave vote. btw - I'm still wondering who suggested business leaders were rent a mob? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 10:29:19 GMT
You see Eric, therein lies an issue. The language, use of the words like "treason" because a view differs from yours. There is a very good article in today's Telegraph by Charles Moore (not a rent a mob leftie, certainly). This stood out to me. "MPs owe their first duty to their conscience, their second to their constituents as a whole, and only their third to their political party and its local organisation. This order should be respected." As I have said before, this is why we have an issue in Parliament. A simple Referendum with a binary question then meets Representative democracy, where sitting MPs face A) Their conscience B) Their constituents as a WHOLE C) And then their party. They are not traitors for doing this, it is not an act of treason. I think Eric is referring to people like Blair, Clegg, Cable and Co, who have had meetings with Barnier and given the message that the EU should only offer a bad deal as a means to get a Second Referendum. They have been openly going against the wishes of the public. With respect Nobby, Eric quoted politicians "past and present". I would love to see any evidence you may have that the people you quoted actually went to senior EU representatives and told them to offer the UK a bad deal? I mean really?? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 10:39:56 GMT
You see Eric, therein lies an issue. The language, use of the words like "treason" because a view differs from yours. There is a very good article in today's Telegraph by Charles Moore (not a rent a mob leftie, certainly). This stood out to me. "MPs owe their first duty to their conscience, their second to their constituents as a whole, and only their third to their political party and its local organisation. This order should be respected." As I have said before, this is why we have an issue in Parliament. A simple Referendum with a binary question then meets Representative democracy, where sitting MPs face A) Their conscience B) Their constituents as a WHOLE C) And then their party. They are not traitors for doing this, it is not an act of treason. I used the word treason not because someone's view differs from mine. I used it because I feel a good number of MP's, past and present and from various parties, are deliberately trying to scupper any leave deal to achieve an end goal of ignoring the democratic referendum result and staying in the EU. I think they are working for what they personally want with little regard for their constituents, particularly those whose constituencies had a clear leave vote. btw - I'm still wondering who suggested business leaders were rent a mob? You of course have a right to your views and I would defend your right to express them. Two things. 1. Do you not see that brandishing people as traitors, based upon your personal perceptions without proof, is a dangerous step, if this was broadened into society at large? 2. With regard to constituents. As I have tried to argue, MPs have a duty to the whole of their constituency, not just those who voted for them. Which is why referendums are not the answer on difficult issues like this, one where the nation is split. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Feb 4, 2019 10:41:38 GMT
You make an interesting point and whilst we all have a view I don't think anyone knows whether we will be better or worse off,maybe over the short term yes over the medium/longterm there are so many other variables it's difficult to draw a conclusion I would like us to be in control of our own decisions and destiny however,the half baked neither in or out proposal only only serves to undermine that proposition. Personally I have considerable faith in ourBusiness community to adapt and thrive however they need certainity a commodity that is in short supply,the biggest issue is the inability of our Politicians to come together and build a consensus which can drive this Country forward,we are in the unfortunate position that at a time when we need leadership we have the weakest self serving group of MPs I have ever seen!!! nice post. What if business adaptation means moving your business? We are beginning to see this it seems. Agree on the politician part they are without a doubt the biggest collection of disjointed steaming turds I have seen since working in gastroenterology. Companies will always move in and out of the UK depending on a variety of issues ie:Tax regime,labour supply etc so I don't have any issue with that. If the Business community had certainity good or bad they will adapt accordingly but we don't have that.The Governments responsibility is to provide the conditions for business to be attracted to the UK and to grow,I would suggest they are not doing that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 10:55:33 GMT
nice post. What if business adaptation means moving your business? We are beginning to see this it seems. Agree on the politician part they are without a doubt the biggest collection of disjointed steaming turds I have seen since working in gastroenterology. Companies will always move in and out of the UK depending on a variety of issues ie:Tax regime,labour supply etc so I don't have any issue with that. If the Business community had certainity good or bad they will adapt accordingly but we don't have that.The Governments responsibility is to provide the conditions for business to be attracted to the UK and to grow,I would suggest they are not doing that. Agreed. Nor is leaving the EU (making the UK attractive). The Nissan issue in Sunderland is an interesting case in point. It could be argued that three things influenced their decision A) The collapse of the diesel engine market. B) The UK leaving the EU C) The EU/Japan trade treaty which just came into force. The UK government could have done something about B and C. That would be of interest to hard faced business decisions rather than a pie in the sky sunny uplands vision which nobody has actually articulated a plan, or even a path, to achieve. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 10:58:09 GMT
I used the word treason not because someone's view differs from mine. I used it because I feel a good number of MP's, past and present and from various parties, are deliberately trying to scupper any leave deal to achieve an end goal of ignoring the democratic referendum result and staying in the EU. I think they are working for what they personally want with little regard for their constituents, particularly those whose constituencies had a clear leave vote. btw - I'm still wondering who suggested business leaders were rent a mob? You of course have a right to your views and I would defend your right to express them. Two things. 1. Do you not see that brandishing people as traitors, based upon your personal perceptions without proof, is a dangerous step, if this was broadened into society at large? 2. With regard to constituents. As I have tried to argue, MPs have a duty to the whole of their constituency, not just those who voted for them. Which is why referendums are not the answer on difficult issues like this, one where the nation is split. 1. I see your point. It's a bit like brandishing people as racists without proof ! 2. Disagree. i can't see it's really possible to satisfy 'the whole of their constituency' when it's such a polarised subject. I maintain that many are working to their own agenda's and in many cases working in the interest of the minority of their constituents. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Feb 4, 2019 11:04:01 GMT
You of course have a right to your views and I would defend your right to express them. Two things. 1. Do you not see that brandishing people as traitors, based upon your personal perceptions without proof, is a dangerous step, if this was broadened into society at large? 2. With regard to constituents. As I have tried to argue, MPs have a duty to the whole of their constituency, not just those who voted for them. Which is why referendums are not the answer on difficult issues like this, one where the nation is split. 1. I see your point. It's a bit like brandishing people as racists without proof ! 2. Disagree. i can't see it's really possible to satisfy 'the whole of their constituency' when it's such a polarised subject. I maintain that many are working to their own agenda's and in many cases working in the interest of the minority of their constituents. which raises a great question. Should they be acting in the best interests of all of their constituents or following the wishes of 52% of them if these differ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 11:11:36 GMT
You of course have a right to your views and I would defend your right to express them. Two things. 1. Do you not see that brandishing people as traitors, based upon your personal perceptions without proof, is a dangerous step, if this was broadened into society at large? 2. With regard to constituents. As I have tried to argue, MPs have a duty to the whole of their constituency, not just those who voted for them. Which is why referendums are not the answer on difficult issues like this, one where the nation is split. 1. I see your point. It's a bit like brandishing people as racists without proof ! 2. Disagree. i can't see it's really possible to satisfy 'the whole of their constituency' when it's such a polarised subject. I maintain that many are working to their own agenda's and in many cases working in the interest of the minority of their constituents. 1. Agreed 2. They cannot (satisfy the whole of their constituency). So then it becomes a matter of conscience. I would argue that as MPs they are party to evidence and research you and I are not. It is their duty to argue the case based on what they know, therefore their conscience. Which is why Parliament is full of remainers, as I think you would agree. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 11:13:21 GMT
1. I see your point. It's a bit like brandishing people as racists without proof ! 2. Disagree. i can't see it's really possible to satisfy 'the whole of their constituency' when it's such a polarised subject. I maintain that many are working to their own agenda's and in many cases working in the interest of the minority of their constituents. which raises a great question. Should they be acting in the best interests of all of their constituents or following the wishes of 52% of them if these differ? All, that is the nature of Representative Democracy. It's what has enabled us to ward off left / right extremist parties. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 11:15:27 GMT
1. I see your point. It's a bit like brandishing people as racists without proof ! 2. Disagree. i can't see it's really possible to satisfy 'the whole of their constituency' when it's such a polarised subject. I maintain that many are working to their own agenda's and in many cases working in the interest of the minority of their constituents. which raises a great question. Should they be acting in the best interests of all of their constituents or following the wishes of 52% of them if these differ? I think they have to carry out the wishes of the referendum majority and that would be my view whether leave or remain had won. If remain had won I would have been annoyed and frustrated but just had to get on with life. No tantrums and no insulting others for their choice of vote. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 11:20:16 GMT
which raises a great question. Should they be acting in the best interests of all of their constituents or following the wishes of 52% of them if these differ? I think they have to carry out the wishes of the referendum majority and that would be my view whether leave or remain had won. If remain had won I would have been annoyed and frustrated but just had to get on with life. No tantrums and no insulting others for their choice of vote. If you carry that forward, you would be undoing the centuries of Representative Democracy we have built in this country. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 4, 2019 11:24:35 GMT
which raises a great question. Should they be acting in the best interests of all of their constituents or following the wishes of 52% of them if these differ? I think they have to carry out the wishes of the referendum majority and that would be my view whether leave or remain had won. If remain had won I would have been annoyed and frustrated but just had to get on with life. No tantrums and no insulting others for their choice of vote. That then brings us back to the question of what did leave mean. None of the main camps could unite around one view and as such people voted for different things. Even now, the hard Brexit option is only supported by a quarter or so if polls are to be used as a guidance. Even JRM, Nigel Farage, Gove, Boris had different opinions and most supported some form of Norway plus arrangement. Single Market was mentioned by Cameron, not Leave. Can anyone tell me if the issues raised since the referendum such as Single Market, Customs Union, WTO, hard border in NI were known to you at the time? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 13:03:49 GMT
We appear to have diverged here, but here is one for Trevorgas and Eric. The British patient looks fit for growth... but is hiding a self-inflicted wound flip.it/LVbLqM |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 4, 2019 13:26:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 13:38:22 GMT
Sad, isn't it. I was 26 with a young kid then I was as horrified then as I am now. I well recall my wife being racially abused in front of my young son that year, in our doctors surgery of all places. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 13:38:38 GMT
I think they have to carry out the wishes of the referendum majority and that would be my view whether leave or remain had won. If remain had won I would have been annoyed and frustrated but just had to get on with life. No tantrums and no insulting others for their choice of vote. That then brings us back to the question of what did leave mean. None of the main camps could unite around one view and as such people voted for different things. Even now, the hard Brexit option is only supported by a quarter or so if polls are to be used as a guidance. Even JRM, Nigel Farage, Gove, Boris had different opinions and most supported some form of Norway plus arrangement. Single Market was mentioned by Cameron, not Leave. Can anyone tell me if the issues raised since the referendum such as Single Market, Customs Union, WTO, hard border in NI were known to you at the time? In it's most basic terms the British public clearly indicated its dislike and distrust of the EU and wanted to sever ties. It's then over to the politicians to make that work as best as possible. If MP's try to sabotage our exit and the EU try to make life as difficult as possible so we end up with a poor exit deal then potentially a second vote could vote remain - we would effectively have given into to the school bully and remain tied to the EU for eternity. I personally expected my leave vote to be for a 'hard brexit' and was ready to face some short term difficulties. Any deal that secured any potential benefits of the EU would have been a bonus - subject to the size of divorce bill that we would have to pay. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Feb 4, 2019 15:15:30 GMT
We appear to have diverged here, but here is one for Trevorgas and Eric. The British patient looks fit for growth... but is hiding a self-inflicted wound flip.it/LVbLqMWe've been hiding self inflicted wounds for years!!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 15:19:04 GMT
We appear to have diverged here, but here is one for Trevorgas and Eric. The British patient looks fit for growth... but is hiding a self-inflicted wound flip.it/LVbLqMWe've been hiding self inflicted wounds for years!!!! But the content of Mr Kings argument is beyond dispute, wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 4, 2019 15:29:54 GMT
That then brings us back to the question of what did leave mean. None of the main camps could unite around one view and as such people voted for different things. Even now, the hard Brexit option is only supported by a quarter or so if polls are to be used as a guidance. Even JRM, Nigel Farage, Gove, Boris had different opinions and most supported some form of Norway plus arrangement. Single Market was mentioned by Cameron, not Leave. Can anyone tell me if the issues raised since the referendum such as Single Market, Customs Union, WTO, hard border in NI were known to you at the time? In it's most basic terms the British public clearly indicated its dislike and distrust of the EU and wanted to sever ties. It's then over to the politicians to make that work as best as possible. If MP's try to sabotage our exit and the EU try to make life as difficult as possible so we end up with a poor exit deal then potentially a second vote could vote remain - we would effectively have given into to the school bully and remain tied to the EU for eternity. I personally expected my leave vote to be for a 'hard brexit' and was ready to face some short term difficulties. Any deal that secured any potential benefits of the EU would have been a bonus - subject to the size of divorce bill that we would have to pay. I appreciate you are happy for the terms to be left to politicians but don't like the result so far, but in fairness what mandate have they been given? A narrow margin and in lieu of a definte option means it has to be close. |
|
