ChatterBank0 min ago
What They Said (And Thought) On The 'peoples March'
Really beggars belief, for example, did you know that Britain will resemble North Korea after Brexit?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
He didn’t quite that tho did he: claiming that the majority of the marchers believe all that nonsense about N Korea for a start. There’s a fair amount of ‘poetic licence’ there because like it seems the majority of bloggers - of whatever hue - he’s not really interested in reality but in pushing his own agenda. Something you’d know all about of course :-)
Spath
\\Two things that were lies just from my general knowledge.
1, "The UK would owe no money to the EU after it left in March 2019"
What about the 40Bn euro?
2, "A raft of new trade deals would be ready on 29 March 2019"
Tripe. Deals cannot be implemented until after December 2020//
1. There is nothing in eu rules about a leaving fee, no one has left before.
2.\\Deals cannot be implemented until after December 2020//
So the EU dont control what we can and can't do then?
\\Two things that were lies just from my general knowledge.
1, "The UK would owe no money to the EU after it left in March 2019"
What about the 40Bn euro?
2, "A raft of new trade deals would be ready on 29 March 2019"
Tripe. Deals cannot be implemented until after December 2020//
1. There is nothing in eu rules about a leaving fee, no one has left before.
2.\\Deals cannot be implemented until after December 2020//
So the EU dont control what we can and can't do then?
Spath
\\Two things that were lies just from my general knowledge.
1, "The UK would owe no money to the EU after it left in March 2019"
What about the 40Bn euro?
2, "A raft of new trade deals would be ready on 29 March 2019"
Tripe. Deals cannot be implemented until after December 2020//
1. There is nothing in eu rules about a leaving fee, no one has left before, if you leave a club you don't continue to pay when you have left if you are not going to be using the club again
2.\\Deals cannot be implemented until after December 2020//
So the EU dont control what we can and can't do then?
\\Two things that were lies just from my general knowledge.
1, "The UK would owe no money to the EU after it left in March 2019"
What about the 40Bn euro?
2, "A raft of new trade deals would be ready on 29 March 2019"
Tripe. Deals cannot be implemented until after December 2020//
1. There is nothing in eu rules about a leaving fee, no one has left before, if you leave a club you don't continue to pay when you have left if you are not going to be using the club again
2.\\Deals cannot be implemented until after December 2020//
So the EU dont control what we can and can't do then?
//I’ve had been thinking about the UK’s membership of the EU since February 7th 1992. That’s a little shy of 9,000 days leading up to the referendum//
I see your 9000 and raise you another 9, NJ. (If you play backgammon you've just been "beavered").
First time I voted was the election of 1970 when a Heath victory was likely to get us into the Common Market (or whatever it was called at the time). I found a rogue anti-Common Market Liberal who promised to defy his party whips if Parliament were called on to vote for or against entry. (Bernard Weatherill, Speaker of the House at the time, was the sitting MP in Croydon North). My decision (my wife's too) was not based on sovereignty - all that stuff was deliberately kept under wraps, it's all about trade, you see - but on the massive tariffs which would hike our food prices and damage our friends in the Commonwealth and in EFTA economically.
Voted "out" in the Wilson referendum, but the public disagreed with me. Understandably at the time: think the general mood was "We've suffered all the pain of joining, let's make the best of it and hope we get to see the benefits".
I see your 9000 and raise you another 9, NJ. (If you play backgammon you've just been "beavered").
First time I voted was the election of 1970 when a Heath victory was likely to get us into the Common Market (or whatever it was called at the time). I found a rogue anti-Common Market Liberal who promised to defy his party whips if Parliament were called on to vote for or against entry. (Bernard Weatherill, Speaker of the House at the time, was the sitting MP in Croydon North). My decision (my wife's too) was not based on sovereignty - all that stuff was deliberately kept under wraps, it's all about trade, you see - but on the massive tariffs which would hike our food prices and damage our friends in the Commonwealth and in EFTA economically.
Voted "out" in the Wilson referendum, but the public disagreed with me. Understandably at the time: think the general mood was "We've suffered all the pain of joining, let's make the best of it and hope we get to see the benefits".
Even if budgets are set for 7 year periods I've seen nothing in the media proving a member state that who leaves mid-period remains responsible for years when they are nolonger a member. One opts out, those who chose to remain should accept that they need to chip in more. Seems like an EU excuse to me.
"Voted "out" in the Wilson referendum, but the public disagreed with me."
To my eternal regret (and current shame), v_e, I was one of the public who disagreed with you. But I was young and gullible then. I just hope that the outcome of these current "negotiations" does not see this country suffer the same erosion of its sovereignty that it suffered over the past 40 years.
To my eternal regret (and current shame), v_e, I was one of the public who disagreed with you. But I was young and gullible then. I just hope that the outcome of these current "negotiations" does not see this country suffer the same erosion of its sovereignty that it suffered over the past 40 years.
How can it be ‘an excuse’ when it’s a mutual agreement between the EU and us? You’re not really doing the leave voters any favours coming out with the old ‘let’s just leave without paying any bills’ statement, especially on a thread condemning remain voter. It was always the case that a deal would have to be struck and this is part of it.
v_e; // [I] Voted "out" in the Wilson referendum, but the public disagreed with me.//
The question facing voters in 1975 was, “Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?” Britons were thus divided into Yes and No camps, as opposed to today’s ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’.
So your choice was either yes or no, like me, you would have voted "no", in fact I made for myself a circular badge using Leteraset (anyone remember that?).
We were both in agreement with playwright John Osborne who called joining with Europe, "the last desperate dream of dull, dim tradesmen without vision, imagination or self-respect, or a feeling for life or history.". So true, he had a way with words did John.
The question facing voters in 1975 was, “Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?” Britons were thus divided into Yes and No camps, as opposed to today’s ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’.
So your choice was either yes or no, like me, you would have voted "no", in fact I made for myself a circular badge using Leteraset (anyone remember that?).
We were both in agreement with playwright John Osborne who called joining with Europe, "the last desperate dream of dull, dim tradesmen without vision, imagination or self-respect, or a feeling for life or history.". So true, he had a way with words did John.
"It was always the case that a deal would have to be struck..."
No it wasn't. The only people that talk of "deals" are the politicians who see Brexit as a damage limitation exercise and who seek to retain as many of the advantages of EU membership as possible. There are undoubted advantages to such membership but there are also undoubted disadvantages. For every advantage that the EU graciously allows us to retain it will insist on two or more disadvantages being maintained (as has been evident from the "negotiations"). The only way to avoid such a one sided arrangement is to leave without a deal, take the hit, put up with their childishness (which will hit them as hard as us and will be short-lived) and move on.
No it wasn't. The only people that talk of "deals" are the politicians who see Brexit as a damage limitation exercise and who seek to retain as many of the advantages of EU membership as possible. There are undoubted advantages to such membership but there are also undoubted disadvantages. For every advantage that the EU graciously allows us to retain it will insist on two or more disadvantages being maintained (as has been evident from the "negotiations"). The only way to avoid such a one sided arrangement is to leave without a deal, take the hit, put up with their childishness (which will hit them as hard as us and will be short-lived) and move on.
It has to be said that many remainers think Brexiteers are thick, gullible, easily lied to and that the leave campaign routinely lied to get the leave result.
Although I knew it anyway, remainers can be just a thick, gullible, easily lied to and that the remain campaign routinely lied and continue to lie to further the elites quest to overturn the result.
Take all the stupid and outlandish comments and predictions out of the equation, be realistic about the effects and then ask people what they would do. As it is project fear is working on gullible people who think the worst.
Although I knew it anyway, remainers can be just a thick, gullible, easily lied to and that the remain campaign routinely lied and continue to lie to further the elites quest to overturn the result.
Take all the stupid and outlandish comments and predictions out of the equation, be realistic about the effects and then ask people what they would do. As it is project fear is working on gullible people who think the worst.
A deal need not be struck if negotiations break down. All it takes is for one side to create issues and reject possible solutions, in the hope of getting no change, for the 'no deal' option to be better than the 'hitting one's head against a brick wall' option. Take the hit and rebuild from better foundations. Let the other side cope with the problems it created for itself; if it can hold itself together long enough.
It doesn't matter an iota who advocated a further referendum nor who would or wouldn't win. The decision's already been made; we don't do undemocratic EU strategies involving voting again and again to get a specific result. The UK is above that sort of manipulation and needs to get away from organizations that advocate it.
There are very powerful arguments for letting people have a say on the actual outcome of what they voted for last time.
I don’t think it’ll happen only because I still think there’ll be a deal and parliament will approve it. Because a lot of the stuff being spouted by so called Tory rebels is pure bluster: this was supposed to be Theresa May’s big week of trouble : but what happens? She goes to the 1922 committee and ‘wins them over’ basically by saying ‘trust me’ Some revolution that.
I don’t think it’ll happen only because I still think there’ll be a deal and parliament will approve it. Because a lot of the stuff being spouted by so called Tory rebels is pure bluster: this was supposed to be Theresa May’s big week of trouble : but what happens? She goes to the 1922 committee and ‘wins them over’ basically by saying ‘trust me’ Some revolution that.
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.