I ally myself with people against the disgusting reporting in the Express, Mail and Sun, and the dumbfucks on the UKIP Facebook site screaming about rich bitches, gay judges and enemies of the people.
I distance myself from homophobia; racism; non-democratic behaviour; playing party politics with issues important for the whole of Europe and name-calling to replace empathy and reasoned debate.
There shouldn't have to be a choice between hard and soft Brexit. We have a choice because comments from the EU are forcing us down a binary route: a cowardly weasely tactic for their own purposes and ignoring what is best for Europe. "No we won't reform, even though it's obviously for the best and so we have to punish everyone in Europe to make an ill-conceived and hard-line dictatorial point.". Personally I want no part in an organisation that behaves like that.
And anyone saying "The people voted on issue X in the referendum" is a liar. Every single person voted for their own reasons and to pretend that it was on one or two issues collectively is disingenuous.
I'd like to see a cross-party committee of adults come up with a proposal and for parliament to debate it like adults without giving away too much on the negotiation points. Actually, I'd like to be open about those too, because ideally the Europe representatives would behave like adults too. Sadly neither will happen because our "leaders" are all self-interested weasels.
We are not being forced down a binary route. The EU has laid down the rules to stay in the Single Market. They apply to all members. The problem is that we want to be in, but want the EU to change the rules. The rules were in place before Brexit. We are not being forced to accept them. Those are the rules, if we don't like them, then we don't stay in the single market, but you can hardly blame the other 27 members for our predicament.
I distance myself from homophobia; racism; non-democratic behaviour; playing party politics with issues important for the whole of Europe and name-calling to replace empathy and reasoned debate.
There shouldn't have to be a choice between hard and soft Brexit. We have a choice because comments from the EU are forcing us down a binary route: a cowardly weasely tactic for their own purposes and ignoring what is best for Europe. "No we won't reform, even though it's obviously for the best and so we have to punish everyone in Europe to make an ill-conceived and hard-line dictatorial point.". Personally I want no part in an organisation that behaves like that.
And anyone saying "The people voted on issue X in the referendum" is a liar. Every single person voted for their own reasons and to pretend that it was on one or two issues collectively is disingenuous.
I'd like to see a cross-party committee of adults come up with a proposal and for parliament to debate it like adults without giving away too much on the negotiation points. Actually, I'd like to be open about those too, because ideally the Europe representatives would behave like adults too. Sadly neither will happen because our "leaders" are all self-interested weasels.
Some of the comments I've read on here make me thoroughly embarrassed to have voted leave. Some proper xenophobic shite being spouted.
think a lot of it's posturing to be honest.
For example, the banks, in this country the car manufacturers in Germany will have a massive say in how their respective governments handle the process.
We are only in a predicament in the opinion of remainers. Why these seemingly unrelated rules? I have an opinion, which I've already shared. What reason do you give for them?
You're the biggest bigot Sick boy, your posts for months demonstrate your hate of the English, you've repeated it all again and again. Can't wait for you to go to Italy ! Byer Bye !
Some of the comments I've read on here make me thoroughly embarrassed to have voted leave. Some proper xenophobic shite being spouted.
Old man ?! here we go again ! You're not Martcov you're mart fucking Germany ?! Mart Merkel , we could say? So Your lass/lad { Can't remember }, Have they suffered terrible trauma in Racist Britain since your move back ?...................No I didn't think so ! Mart don't ally yourself with that Irish Bigot he has a whole history on here for lies and hatred against ordinary English folk. He'll invalidate all your POV for his personal political campaign.
think a lot of it's posturing to be honest.
For example, the banks, in this country the car manufacturers in Germany will have a massive say in how their respective governments handle the process.
We are in a predicament because of a split advisory referendum based on either yes or no, but without considering the various possibilities of the terms of leaving.
There was no plan for leave winning.
We now have one party invoking royal prerogative and another party using the unelected House of Lords to block Brexit. Middle Ages lawmaking.
Labour may rise from the grave because they have recognized the law decision and want to have a say in how Brexit is carried out. Sensible in comparison to trying to blag article 50 through by bypassing parliament and the reaction of the disgusting newspapers.
I don't have to give a reason for the rules of the Single Market, you have to give a reason for being excepted from them when 27 other countries are not.
We don't like them is not a sufficient answer.
Free movement of people - 1957OK, so this is what I think; which I have stated before so you may recall.
The EU wanted to be a economic superpower. And it decided to do that it needed a single currency. It implemented that without thinking through the consequences and so now the entirely predictable outcomes are very visible: greater poverty and unemployment in the less wealthy countries.
How can we help with that without giving up our white elephant currency they ask themselves? I know, let's have free movement of people, so that the people in these regions can move elsewhere to get a job. But of course that leads to some areas of Europe becoming even poorer and like ghost towns. In these places, all the clubs are being closed down due to too much fighting on the dance floor. And other areas of Europe become over-populated; causing wage deflation for the least capable, lack of housing and slum conditions.
But this is not important to the elite. What's important is they are heads of a superpower; one where they can spend the poor man's taxes with fantastically expensive hotels and meals and moving parliament regularly so they can build up air miles (for last point I have my tongue in my cheek). If they were concerned about Europe they would dismantle the single currency or put the infrastructure in place to help these places (not the pennies they are throwing there now - billions and billions). The latter isn't politically possible so they should do the former. And start focusing on what's best for the people of Europe rather than what stokes their inflated egos most.
The fantasies about the UK getting access to the single market without freedom of movement because we buy cars and cheese will be shown to have been lies.
Free movement of people - 1957
The Euro - 2002
A free market would of course allow movement of people, because once it got too much then people would move elsewhere...OK, some poetic license with the dates. That's not important; people didn't move in their hundreds of thousands in 1957 because they didn't need to. They need to now because of the poverty imposed by EMU.
OK, some poetic license with the dates. That's not important; people didn't move in their hundreds of thousands in 1957 because they didn't need to. They need to now because of the poverty imposed by EMU.
A free market would of course allow movement of people, because once it got too much then people would move elsewhere...
I always find it slightly ironic that the party generally considered to be more laissez faire in our country is usually more disposed to control of im/emigration, whilst that traditionally associated with state control is more likely to embrace it,
So, if we're accepting a logic that movement of people is bad (I do this for the sake of argument!) then we have to accept tariffs too, and the potential consequence of certain multi-nationals pulling out of this country.
The question, which I leave open, is whether the pay-off is worth having.
The question, which I leave open, is whether the pay-off is worth having.
There was still a lot of poverty in these countries before the EU as well though. I very much appreciate what you say in your other post but EU membership has also benefitted the poorer regions of Europe.
Wage growth in the UK is exactly the same as it is in Greece, poverty is real in this country and has been imposed by ideological zealot tory government. Leaving the EU and putting more power in the hands of the same government that has inflicted misery on millions is not the answer.OK, some poetic license with the dates. That's not important; people didn't move in their hundreds of thousands in 1957 because they didn't need to. They need to now because of the poverty imposed by EMU.
OK, so this is what I think; which I have stated before so you may recall.
The EU wanted to be a economic superpower. And it decided to do that it needed a single currency. It implemented that without thinking through the consequences and so now the entirely predictable outcomes are very visible: greater poverty and unemployment in the less wealthy countries.
How can we help with that without giving up our white elephant currency they ask themselves? I know, let's have free movement of people, so that the people in these regions can move elsewhere to get a job. But of course that leads to some areas of Europe becoming even poorer and like ghost towns. In these places, all the clubs are being closed down due to too much fighting on the dance floor. And other areas of Europe become over-populated; causing wage deflation for the least capable, lack of housing and slum conditions.
But this is not important to the elite. What's important is they are heads of a superpower; one where they can spend the poor man's taxes with fantastically expensive hotels and meals and moving parliament regularly so they can build up air miles (for last point I have my tongue in my cheek). If they were concerned about Europe they would dismantle the single currency or put the infrastructure in place to help these places (not the pennies they are throwing there now - billions and billions). The latter isn't politically possible so they should do the former. And start focusing on what's best for the people of Europe rather than what stokes their inflated egos most.
It's a really worrying trend though, you might be intelligent enough to formulate your own arguments but many aren't and take what is printed in these rags as gospel. I have no idea what can be done but there should be more concerted effort from both sides of the debate to condemn this type of journalism in the strongest terms. I feel at the moment the government is burying it's head in the sand because, while they don't agree with what's written, the papers are whipping people up in a way that is useful to their cause.Some good points Mart; I'd forgotten about Communism. Many of your points are similar to mine - how free movement is killing poorer countries: we need people to stay to become entrepreneurs in their native countries but it's much easier to move away.
The gutter press is called the gutter press for a reason. Whilst I accept it will influence some I have absolutely no interest in what it has to say and tbh I only ever hear about what it writes from here.
The fantasies about the UK getting access to the single market without freedom of movement because we buy cars and cheese will be shown to have been lies.
If that's the case, and I think it is, then there can be no argument made for us all pulling together to make brexit work. If the leave side can't get there house in order to the point of not even condemning far right rhetoric akin to the 1930s then remainders should have no qualms about being on the other side of the debate, to the point of being vescerally opossed.The government has no interest in condemning this sort of reporting as it takes the focus away from their own shambolic behaviour.
The last 3 words of the Express' lead article were "fight fight fight". Shocking.
If that's the case, and I think it is, then there can be no argument made for us all pulling together to make brexit work. If the leave side can't get there house in order to the point of not even condemning far right rhetoric akin to the 1930s then remainders should have no qualms about being on the other side of the debate, to the point of being vescerally opossed.
A free market would of course allow movement of people, because once it got too much then people would move elsewhere...
I always find it slightly ironic that the party generally considered to be more laissez faire in our country is usually more disposed to control of im/emigration, whilst that traditionally associated with state control is more likely to embrace it,
So, if we're accepting a logic that movement of people is bad (I do this for the sake of argument!) then we have to accept tariffs too, and the potential consequence of certain multi-nationals pulling out of this country.
The question, which I leave open, is whether the pay-off is worth having.
The fantasies about the UK getting access to the single market without freedom of movement because we buy cars and cheese will be shown to have been lies.
The fact is that we as a country are nett importers. That means tariffs harm us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?