Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Uk Govt Rejects 2Nd Referendum
Can we now just get on with it?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by retrocop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nobody knows who is “right”, garaman. Only time will tell whether the UK is better or worse off economically by being outside the EU. Even that, of course, will not be conclusive because nobody knows how the economy would have fared had we remained.
I am not among the moaners (especially as the result I craved was achieved). Nor would I have moaned had the result gone the other way. All I ever wanted was for the electorate to have a direct say on a matter that was clearly not one simply for Parliament – a say which they should have had prior to Maastricht being signed in 1992.
The reason I mention the “£350m” is because it is constantly being raised by those suggesting the referendum should be re-run/the electorate was misled/the result should be void etc.etc. Giving that sum to the NHS was, as far as I can see, only ever a suggestion of what might be done should we leave. If it swung some people’s votes (and I doubt it swayed very many) there are plenty of forecasts of Armageddon that were made by the Remainers that may well have influenced voters the other way. That’s what politicians do. But none of it matters.
I will modify your football analogy somewhat. It’s rather like having your team run from abroad by people with no accountability to the fans or the players, who consider the wishes and needs of fans from 27 other countries before they make a decision and who alter the rules of the game and everything to do with your business, to which you must adhere under the threat of sanctions. And just for good measure they’ll take 5% of your gate money and give you 2% back provided you spend it as they dictate. That’s a more realistic analogy.
“Equally it is also insulting to be described as a racist for voting to leave. Allegedly, according to one bigoted view here, we voted to leave to kick out the "horrid foreigners". Only an ignoramus would vote on that basis and believe it to happen.”
Quite so, retro. Nobody in their right mind would expect EU citizens lawfully settled here to be kicked out any more than they would expect ex-pats to be expelled from the Spanish Costas. It simply will not (and indeed should not) happen. There is a considerable difference between taking that view and wanting to restore the UK’s ability to decide who does and does not settle here. But that seems to have been somewhat glossed over.
I am not among the moaners (especially as the result I craved was achieved). Nor would I have moaned had the result gone the other way. All I ever wanted was for the electorate to have a direct say on a matter that was clearly not one simply for Parliament – a say which they should have had prior to Maastricht being signed in 1992.
The reason I mention the “£350m” is because it is constantly being raised by those suggesting the referendum should be re-run/the electorate was misled/the result should be void etc.etc. Giving that sum to the NHS was, as far as I can see, only ever a suggestion of what might be done should we leave. If it swung some people’s votes (and I doubt it swayed very many) there are plenty of forecasts of Armageddon that were made by the Remainers that may well have influenced voters the other way. That’s what politicians do. But none of it matters.
I will modify your football analogy somewhat. It’s rather like having your team run from abroad by people with no accountability to the fans or the players, who consider the wishes and needs of fans from 27 other countries before they make a decision and who alter the rules of the game and everything to do with your business, to which you must adhere under the threat of sanctions. And just for good measure they’ll take 5% of your gate money and give you 2% back provided you spend it as they dictate. That’s a more realistic analogy.
“Equally it is also insulting to be described as a racist for voting to leave. Allegedly, according to one bigoted view here, we voted to leave to kick out the "horrid foreigners". Only an ignoramus would vote on that basis and believe it to happen.”
Quite so, retro. Nobody in their right mind would expect EU citizens lawfully settled here to be kicked out any more than they would expect ex-pats to be expelled from the Spanish Costas. It simply will not (and indeed should not) happen. There is a considerable difference between taking that view and wanting to restore the UK’s ability to decide who does and does not settle here. But that seems to have been somewhat glossed over.
If it's of any interest to you, the campaign itself had no influence on me whatsoever. I decided in 1992 that I believed the UK should have a referendum on its EU membership. I would have voted to leave whenever such a vote was held and nothing, but nothing that anybody - particularly politicians - told me would have changed my mind. So in that respect I'm not guilty of absorbing or ignoring anything.
^^^ I also decided, several years ago (can't quite remember when) whilst I was living in France; had got used to the systems; made friends and social groupings; improved my French to a very decent communicative level (don't answer 100% for the grammar!) that EU aspirations and attitudes were not for Britain. I even voted in French municipal elections. I assimilated very well into the country I had made my home.
In fact, I have said (and hold by) that the more I learned French and exactly what people were saying, the more I understood their systems and thought processes and the more I realised that there was a huge gap between us, which could not be wiped-out.
Unlike many, I am fond of the French ( to the point of exasperation and wanting to box their ears at times), certainly I like our French friends and do not fall for stereotypes.
In fact, I have said (and hold by) that the more I learned French and exactly what people were saying, the more I understood their systems and thought processes and the more I realised that there was a huge gap between us, which could not be wiped-out.
Unlike many, I am fond of the French ( to the point of exasperation and wanting to box their ears at times), certainly I like our French friends and do not fall for stereotypes.
@NJ
Oh and a swift recalculation of your team's last 20 years' worth of gate receipts, to take account of charity stall activities, on site.
"After the Office for National Statistics provided new figures, which included a revaluation of the size and contribution of the UK's charity sector, the British economy was found to be larger than previously determined."
From the "Cameron and Osborne quietly pays the EU £1.7Bn" story in the DM recently (I missed the thread, if there was one here).
@Garaman
//We are all guilty of absorbing the information that strengthens our position and ignoring that which weakens it – cognitive dissonance I believe they call it.//
Cognitive dissonance is what you experience as you contemplate two contradictory concepts, simultaneously.
Your definition more closely resembles "confirmation bias". Gathering that which backs up your opinion and disregarding contradictory evidence of (esp. scientifically) equal validity. There is supposed to be a "Journal of negative results" but it is only of academic interest, in the literal, rather than derogatory sense.
Oh and a swift recalculation of your team's last 20 years' worth of gate receipts, to take account of charity stall activities, on site.
"After the Office for National Statistics provided new figures, which included a revaluation of the size and contribution of the UK's charity sector, the British economy was found to be larger than previously determined."
From the "Cameron and Osborne quietly pays the EU £1.7Bn" story in the DM recently (I missed the thread, if there was one here).
@Garaman
//We are all guilty of absorbing the information that strengthens our position and ignoring that which weakens it – cognitive dissonance I believe they call it.//
Cognitive dissonance is what you experience as you contemplate two contradictory concepts, simultaneously.
Your definition more closely resembles "confirmation bias". Gathering that which backs up your opinion and disregarding contradictory evidence of (esp. scientifically) equal validity. There is supposed to be a "Journal of negative results" but it is only of academic interest, in the literal, rather than derogatory sense.
@jourdain2
I can understand the desire of Europeans to ditch the whole concept of borders, having expended millions of lives (over the centuries) in deciding where these should be placed. Unification puts an end to territorial ***.
We're an island and have had insularity bred into us. No one can walk an army across our border, so we've been *and felt* "safe" for a thousand years. Being told where to get off, by people from 'away' offends us.
If conditions are imposed, we can't call it "free trade" any more, imho.
No one under age 62 had a chance to vote in/out on the (mutated) EU until now. That's a long wait for 1972's 17 year olds (I was too young to feel cheated). Like NJ, I think my mind was made up before the campaign began. I will happily accept a rough ride to achieve eventual freedom from beaurocracy (I've just watched the BBC2 prog about migrants, so forgive the imagery).
I can understand the desire of Europeans to ditch the whole concept of borders, having expended millions of lives (over the centuries) in deciding where these should be placed. Unification puts an end to territorial ***.
We're an island and have had insularity bred into us. No one can walk an army across our border, so we've been *and felt* "safe" for a thousand years. Being told where to get off, by people from 'away' offends us.
If conditions are imposed, we can't call it "free trade" any more, imho.
No one under age 62 had a chance to vote in/out on the (mutated) EU until now. That's a long wait for 1972's 17 year olds (I was too young to feel cheated). Like NJ, I think my mind was made up before the campaign began. I will happily accept a rough ride to achieve eventual freedom from beaurocracy (I've just watched the BBC2 prog about migrants, so forgive the imagery).
Jourdain
I have never had a problem with any of the men/women on the ground in Europe. I have always been able to treat them as good friends and if any thing often have to apologise for the behaviour of my own countrymen/women. Brexit is not a divorce from these people. It doesn't have to be and right minded people who voted leave will not allow it to happen. Unlike a bigot on this site who believes the vote leavers are racist and wish to say bye bye to the horrid foreigners I,for one,will always hate the EU parliament but never our European friends. Charlie Hebbo proved our love and solidarity as well as other tragedys that united us as humans and shared the grief we all suffer together.
I have never had a problem with any of the men/women on the ground in Europe. I have always been able to treat them as good friends and if any thing often have to apologise for the behaviour of my own countrymen/women. Brexit is not a divorce from these people. It doesn't have to be and right minded people who voted leave will not allow it to happen. Unlike a bigot on this site who believes the vote leavers are racist and wish to say bye bye to the horrid foreigners I,for one,will always hate the EU parliament but never our European friends. Charlie Hebbo proved our love and solidarity as well as other tragedys that united us as humans and shared the grief we all suffer together.
//We're an island and have had insularity bred into us. No one can walk an army across our border, so we've been *and felt* "safe" for a thousand years. Being told where to get off, by people from 'away' offends us. //
Too true we are an Island and obviously as we are surrounded by water we should be allowed a large fishing fleet to sustain our dietary needs. We were deprived of that by the EU with the loss of thousands of jobs in the UK.
Any one remember our drifters/trawlers pulled up on the hards and bulldozed at the dictate of Europe. I didn't see French or Spanish boats suffer the same fate. I do see French boats and Spanish sheltering in our Ports after raping our waters of fish stocks when a storm brews.
Get real remainers. We, as an Island are just as entitled to fish our waters and provide a livelihood to our fisherman if we still have any left !!
Too true we are an Island and obviously as we are surrounded by water we should be allowed a large fishing fleet to sustain our dietary needs. We were deprived of that by the EU with the loss of thousands of jobs in the UK.
Any one remember our drifters/trawlers pulled up on the hards and bulldozed at the dictate of Europe. I didn't see French or Spanish boats suffer the same fate. I do see French boats and Spanish sheltering in our Ports after raping our waters of fish stocks when a storm brews.
Get real remainers. We, as an Island are just as entitled to fish our waters and provide a livelihood to our fisherman if we still have any left !!
“i.e. you seem to be explaining how you chose to ignore everything from 1992.”
I think we are both suffering a misunderstanding, garaman. I believed we were discussing the recent campaigns. I ignored everything from both sides during those campaigns because my mind has been made up over the last quarter of a century, not the last three months. Far from ignoring everything in that time I have paid very close attention to EU matters. I’ve certainly ignored very little and probably have a better than average understanding of the pros and cons of EU membership. The result of ignoring very little in that time put me in a strong position to make an informed decision when it came to the referendum. I think a decision based on a quarter of century of observation and experience probably makes for a better decision than one made on the basis of listening to a few self-serving politicians spouting misleading waffle for a few weeks. The respective campaigns had no influence on me whatsoever.
I think we are both suffering a misunderstanding, garaman. I believed we were discussing the recent campaigns. I ignored everything from both sides during those campaigns because my mind has been made up over the last quarter of a century, not the last three months. Far from ignoring everything in that time I have paid very close attention to EU matters. I’ve certainly ignored very little and probably have a better than average understanding of the pros and cons of EU membership. The result of ignoring very little in that time put me in a strong position to make an informed decision when it came to the referendum. I think a decision based on a quarter of century of observation and experience probably makes for a better decision than one made on the basis of listening to a few self-serving politicians spouting misleading waffle for a few weeks. The respective campaigns had no influence on me whatsoever.
@retrocop
As one keen observer put it, on one of the Andrew Neil fronted TV shows, "it was Angela Merckel who won it, for the Leave campaign".
The fact that we had all manner of special rules, exemptions from the kind of obligations other EU countries take in their stride was sign enough that our hearts were not truly in it, to full depth, in the first place.
For their part, the EU have made it clear that they will brook no exit "feint" maneuvers, to wangle Brit-style exceptionalism, so we had squeezed the last drop of juice out of the concession fruit.
There is nothing left to negotiate. Norway's duff deal must, I conclude, be predicated on it having some highly lucrative products which it cannot bear to miss out on selling. In all the threads on AB which cite Norway (TV too) we've not really examined their position in any greater depth.
Our balance of trade is hugely negative and I hope it's not all based on debt and/or the housing bubble. It certainly isn't based on vast car sales, or similar exports. Service industries? Really? Do EUnians bank/insure with British companies? Weapons sales, I could believe but that's just me being cynical.
As one keen observer put it, on one of the Andrew Neil fronted TV shows, "it was Angela Merckel who won it, for the Leave campaign".
The fact that we had all manner of special rules, exemptions from the kind of obligations other EU countries take in their stride was sign enough that our hearts were not truly in it, to full depth, in the first place.
For their part, the EU have made it clear that they will brook no exit "feint" maneuvers, to wangle Brit-style exceptionalism, so we had squeezed the last drop of juice out of the concession fruit.
There is nothing left to negotiate. Norway's duff deal must, I conclude, be predicated on it having some highly lucrative products which it cannot bear to miss out on selling. In all the threads on AB which cite Norway (TV too) we've not really examined their position in any greater depth.
Our balance of trade is hugely negative and I hope it's not all based on debt and/or the housing bubble. It certainly isn't based on vast car sales, or similar exports. Service industries? Really? Do EUnians bank/insure with British companies? Weapons sales, I could believe but that's just me being cynical.
Latest Posts
Jokes10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Film, Media & TV24 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.