D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Norway pay about £96 per head net to the EU.
The UK pay about... £96 per head net to the EU.
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (199 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
Norway pay about £96 per head net to the EU.
The UK pay about... £96 per head net to the EU.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Pretty sure the argument for leaving the EU was because parliament didn't get control over what happened to the country, too.
Well... now parliament has control over what happens to the country, surely those who voted out should be delighted?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Some people don't want open boarders because they're racists who don't like imigrunts. I thought that was self explanatory. I certainly never said anyone who has concern's over boarder controls is a racist. It depends on what their concerns are. Some are racially motivated some aren't. Let's not try and pretend that nobody voted out based on racist motivations though. Clearly some did.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
However, you said that their will be free movement of labour and that unless you are against immigrunts and you are racist that will be fine.
I think many, many people voted with genuine concerns on immigration and fell a necessity to own the border policy.
Do you think they are racist Tony - if not then your statement is a contradiction.
I think we are connected culturally and historically. Apart from anything else we were part of the Roman Empire for nearly 400 years, we have been invaded and settled by Danes, Jutes, Angles, Saxons and not to forget the Normans. We fought for and against virtually every European power somewhere and at some time.
I agree that we need an English parliament - only English - as part of a federal system.
I see the point the Scots have and I am not interested in rebellion or Marxism. More important to me, as someone who prefers to see people getting on with one another, is the foreseeable problem of a 'hard' border between Northern Ireland and the ROI. All unnecessary.
The country decided to leave, but not on what terms. There are a whole range of options which no-one was ever consulted about. Let's hope that parliament brings these to debate.
The alternative of May invoking some prerogative from the Middle Ages is abhorrent and undemokratic.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Brexit meant brexit. Both sides were actually in complete agreement on that so sorry that's wrong.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The question was yes or no. Not hard, soft, hard border in Ireland, individual countries to make their own choice, City of London to retain passport or not...etc etc. Brexit, yes, but not how or in what form. A terrible situation to be in. The referendum was advisory. There is no mandate to leave at whatever terms are offered. So sorry, but the leavers seem to have not been consulted on what form of Brexit they actually want. Some want to get rid of Muslims, others want the Poles to go home tomorrow and others want to retain the single market and to allow all EU citizens who are here to stay. Brexit certainly does not mean Brexit at all costs.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Funny how you fail to take notice of full stops. The two sentences were even separated by other sentences yet you put them together.
I've already correct your twists I don't need to explain it again.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Sorry I don't agree. Yes your side lost the referendum I quite agree. Brexit meant brexit and both sides to their credit made their absolutely clear. Why you keep going on about other regions of the country is beyond me. We as a country. People in Scotland didn't vote for a conservative government but they got one. So that's that one sorted.
A small correction if I may..... no such thing as hard or soft brexit. Brexit meant Brexit.
Now I know you don't agree and you voted remain. That's good for you and I would never want to change your mind obviously but if you think a smarmy looking millionaire hedge fund manager winning a case via 3 unelected judges is democracy over a referendum of which the biggest ever turnout (33million people) in a British election is democracy then that says it all.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Some day somebody'll tell me what Brexit means, rather than tell me it means itself.
It's a nonsensical vacuous meaningless statement.
As sure as eggs are eggs, and dogs are dogs.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
For goodness sake. You really don't like the result do you. Both side were in full agreement what brexit meant. It's only because my side won you lot are muddying the waters deliberately I may add.
Brexit meant coming out of the single market. No open borders, passports back. Our Territorial waters back and our parliament and courts are king with no EU court of justice. Court of appeal etc
Not that hard to grasp is it? Oh hang on it wasn't on the ballot paper. Apologies I forgot.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I fail to see how you can determine that from me asking what it actually means, rather than some banal gibberish that says nothing.
Apples be apples.
GLWT
Hardstanding means hardstanding
Please tell, how many heads are there in Norway ?
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
What does Brexit means Brexit mean exactly?
That is really irrelevant. It is how much each person pays that is relevant. You could say Norway gets a cheaper deal, but the deal will have a relationship to the size of the population.
All judges are unelected. So what do you want, politicians to judge whether what they are doing is correct? I think the answer may be yes in all cases if politicians checked themselves - who needs pesky courts checking with boring law books and evolved constitutional decisions. The judges have proved their worth in ensuring that parliament has sovereignty over a political clique deciding things without consultation with the representatives of the people.
The decision doesn't stop brexit, but it does mean that it is taken out of the hands of a clique and that there will be a debate about the way to go forward. But you're not worried, so instead of calling people smarmy looking, you should be rejoicing that the political system in Britain is working.
This was not a general election so don't compare the Scottish referendum result with a normal situation which could be reversed at the next general election. This is a one off which cannot be easily reversed and is the most significant event in my lifetime. Yes, I am upset. It has been a disaster up until now and it is not getting better.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Look if the parliament want to decide as in MPs then fine by me. Technically it is the right thing to do what is morally wrong is actively trying the change the result of a massive referendum. I know you are upset and that's fine. Your side lost and if leave lost I would of been very upset to I assure you but maybe the difference is I wouldn't of expected a hedge fund business women who is worth a few million quid actively trying to reverse the result of a British referendum in court backed up by 3 judges who have history of eu law making. As I say if you believe these 4 people represents over 33mil in a referendum then fine but I don't agree with it.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
P.s why has been a disaster? If it has that's not the people's fault is it. We were asked to vote and we did. No more we can do.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I must have missed his agreement before the vote of exactly what terms we would be leaving the EU on. What you've written sounds like your definition, there are some who will think the same, there are many who will give a different definition.
Sounds like you're in favour of independence for Scotland. A government they didn't vote for, who persuaded them to stay in the union as we were 'better together' and kept telling them a vote for independence would mean Scotland leaving the EU.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think we'd pay less per head though due to population. The population of London is bigger than the population of Norway. They can't spread costs as thinly as we can. We'll still be contributing though.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
But we could still be fully out of the EU and 100% in the single market. There's a price to pay for access to the single market and that's what alot of brexit voter's failed to grasp. They don't understand what out is and unfortunately for them decided to take one liners from the out campaign, filled in the gap's with their own version of what that meant and people in the out campaign were happy to let them think that so long as they voted out. Boris actually let the cat out the bag in his Times column immediately after the 23rd of June. Why do you think Gove turned on him? Boris jumped the gun and broke the obvious news before he was supposed to. The out campaign conned voters. It didn't lie as such, it didn't even tell half truths, it started sentences and let people write their own endings then didn't correct the ones that were wrong.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
You are talking bollocks. http://www.may2015.com/ideas/not-a-single-sitting-mp-won-a-majority-of-their-constituency/
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
That was the real issue. He fucked up big time. Still Blair fucked up even bigger with his war.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Are you trying to say the only Brexit can be a hard Brexit?
I am saying what they are saying, that 650 in parliament represent the whole country, and they decide if and how we go about Brexit. The advisory referendum has shown that on 23 June a small majority of those who voted wanted Brexit. They didn't specify exactly how that would work.
The judges have not stopped Brexit. They have said it has to be carried out according to our parliamentary system.
Whether the person who put the case forward is rich or the judges are experts in EU law is irrelevant.
We are ruled by a sovereign parliament and May is trying to bypass parliament to avoid the Torys possibly having to have an election to get their version of Brexit through.
I cannot see your objection to parliament deciding how we go about Brexit. Who knows, maybe they decide that your version of Brexit is the correct one.
We cannot know which of them won the fuck up competition as the game is still going on.
No it's not the people's fault. They were asked a simple question which only gave two extreme options - in or out.
The real debate should have been in parliament as it has been for centuries.
The referendum was not granted to give the people more say, as Cameron thought they would rubber stamp government policy anyway. It was given to do with internal Tory political reasons.
Now we are in a constitutional crisis. The government wants to go back to the Middle Ages by using "the royal perogative", having told the people they would have more say.
You really couldn't make this up.
Melt down...... a court decision which upholds the right of a democratic parliament against a royal perogative..., Pictures and quotes from lying scum alongside references to Churchill and world war 2. Who needs courts and judges? Judges messing around in May's plans to act like a medieval monarch.
If ever we needed courts to control the government, it is now.
The most important decision in my life time has got to be carried out properly- and not by bullshitters such as Johnson supported by nauseous rabble rousers such Farage and the Express.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
If Scotland want another indepedance vote that's fine with me let them although I can't see it being in their interests but whatever I'm not Scottish and leave if that's what they want and I would argue most people who voted brexit meant what I stated. Even the remain camp were crystal clear on this. Out meaning leaving all the four principals. It wasn't hard to understand.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
No such thing as a hard Or a soft brexit. Was never mentioned once in the campaign by both sides. Because it doesn't exist.