Would you vote the same again?

[Greenmile]

The point is, you claim that everyone who voted to stay in 2016 would have been satisfied with the long-term effects of the vote. And yet at least half of the surviving Remain voters from 1975 have since changed their minds - they are clearly not happy with the effects of their vote.

Even if the Brexit negotiations resulted in a rotten deal equating to what we have now, we would still be better off in two ways. One, we would still be free to negotiate trade deals (or free trade deals) with countries like the USA which the EU does not have a deal with; two, we could at least withdraw from that rotten deal without having to ask the EU's permission, if we got a set of politicians with a bit more backbone. So I could well see myself being unhappy with the outcome, but not as unhappy as I would be if the vote had gone the other way.

I think now I see why we seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. I never said "long-term" but referred to the time it takes to get Brexit finally sorted, so unless you think that's going to take decades, we are talking about two different things.

[If it be your will]

.

[BleedingClaret]

Yes to leave

The popular propaganda is that us thicky rascists misled leavers didn't know what we were voting for and are not prepared for the reality of a 'Hard Brexit'

The reality, the bollockless dumb sheeplike indoctrinated remainers, only fair to give it back in equal measure, need to realise the winners in that democratic election certainly were not expecting it to be led by a remainer!

It's certainly a lot softer than I would advocate.

I think the person that invented predictive text voted to remain!

[BleedingClaret]

Reference OP on fixed term parliament it was only a Lib Dem tool to ensure they got a full term sharing, that's a laugh, power.
So if you voted a government in and 6 months later it was in chaos, they get 3 and half more years, with democracy powerless to intervene,farcical and dangerous.
Never voted Tory in my life, but I have never known a more genuine and important reason for an election.
Apparently none of us want Brexit anymore, so she'll surely lose.
Won't she?
Media don't like her
Rough arsed f@ckers do
I do
She's serious and that is almost lost in Politics

[lucs86]

good post #302

[Lancasterclaret]

Cracking post ITBYW

[ClaretMoffitt]

Here we are, ClaretMoffitt, I'll answer it on this thread.



Basically my opinions on the 'EU referendum - In or Out' thread still stand:

The EU expansion was a calculated ploy. Expansion should have included deliberate policies - including a substantial shift of wealth from West to East - to equalise living standards throughout, for the good of all. A bit like the approach taken with the unification of Germany. It cost West Germany a fortune, but it was worth it. If the electorates in the West couldn't stomach this, there should have been no expansion at all.

Instead, all we got was a cynical grab of cheap labour from the East to crush wage bargaining powers in the West, resulting in worse living standards for the working classes here. 'If you won't do it, we'll get a Pole to do it at half price'. The East, largely, was left to rot, with whole areas subjected to both a brain drain and a 'youth drain'. Families and their regional identities torn apart, with members moving thousands of miles to serve our coffee and clean our toilets here. Major employers had a field day.

Add in the fact that the Maastricht treaty is unashamedly neoliberal and pro-business, governments were fairly powerless to prevent the results. The state is forbidden from aiding industry for instance. I simply couldn't vote for this.

But I wrongly predicted several things:

1. The Fixed Term Parliament Act actually meant something (stupid to think that, I know). There would be no 'power grab' snap election.

2. I didn't think the Tories would go all out for UKIP voters. (Makes perfect sense in retrospect. They can win a landslide just by taking half of all UKIP votes, even if the Labour vote share remains constant.)

3. And by chasing the UKIP vote and throwing wild accusations around about fixing our election, we are in the process of destroying the goodwill Europe had for us. Yes, those in high office in the EU know this is silly posturing that can be ignored, but Europe is full of democracies as well. If their electorates get wind of us picking a fight, they will demand their leaders retaliate, and we'll be annihilated. Or at least we'll be a lot more damaged than them. You might assume our 350m/week contribution to the EU project is large, but it is barely a rounding error compared to the size of the whole EU economy. And 350m was always an over-exaggerated lie anyway.

4. As a result, we are now staring down the barrel of a very right-wing, free-market wasteland run by ultra wealthy Tory donors, with none of the protections afforded by EU laws. There's no way these guys are interested in workers' rights, environmental protection, better wages and conditions:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 24548.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We can't possibly see the future, but all told this is not looking good. I would abstain if the vote was held again.

Okay, so I get you know. You are worried about the right-wing shaping of Britain under a Tory government that has re-positioned itself a bit further west in order to scoop up a dying UKIP vote. I get that, its fair enough.

I don't personally think that the Tories are going to go on the offensive against workers rights, the environment, and employment conditions. I think that the old Tory party and its ways are dead, they have fundamentally changed to what they were 30 years ago. In truth, I think they are more for the working man and woman than any other party in Britain at the moment, Labour talk like they are but they do not convince me what so ever. They seem to me like a party that knows it can promise the world without ever having to deliver on it.

Because good old Cameron lied about staying on after the referendum, we entered a political climate that nobody really predicted, with a new PM, a new direction and the almost certain prospect of another 5 years of tory government. I get that too, so if you are fundamentally against the Tories, but still voted leave, this would no doubt be concerning for you.

I don't think TM ever said they were trying to fix our election. There is no doubt however they are trying to get involved, with key figures in the EU making very public noises about how TM is conducting her talks, and her ambitions and rubbishing them to our press. Make no mistake doing that is partly with a view to influencing our voters, they are trying to undermine her at a key time. They want to build an impression that TM is unrealistic, incompetent and out of her depth. Ask yourself this, do you think they would rather be negotiating with her, or JC?

What I think is important to remember is that every reason that you and millions of others voted to leave is still valid today. It was a vote made looking long term, not short term. When Labour get their act together and put someone in who can rally the centrists and the softer right, the tories will be out, and the perceived injustices of the Tories can be dealt with. That was one of the main reasons for voting leave for me; full accountability. There is no blaming anyone else anymore, no foreign interference, no nothing. If we don't like a party, we vote them out, its that simple. We didn't get that option with the EU, we were subject to their will for the most part. We could not hold them to account because we have no democratic sway over them.

[BleedingClaret]

Here we are, ClaretMoffitt, I'll answer it on this thread.



Basically my opinions on the 'EU referendum - In or Out' thread still stand:

The EU expansion was a calculated ploy. Expansion should have included deliberate policies - including a substantial shift of wealth from West to East - to equalise living standards throughout, for the good of all. A bit like the approach taken with the unification of Germany. It cost West Germany a fortune, but it was worth it. If the electorates in the West couldn't stomach this, there should have been no expansion at all.

Instead, all we got was a cynical grab of cheap labour from the East to crush wage bargaining powers in the West, resulting in worse living standards for the working classes here. 'If you won't do it, we'll get a Pole to do it at half price'. The East, largely, was left to rot, with whole areas subjected to both a brain drain and a 'youth drain'. Families and their regional identities torn apart, with members moving thousands of miles to serve our coffee and clean our toilets here. Major employers had a field day.

Add in the fact that the Maastricht treaty is unashamedly neoliberal and pro-business, governments were fairly powerless to prevent the results. The state is forbidden from aiding industry for instance. I simply couldn't vote for this.

But I wrongly predicted several things:

1. The Fixed Term Parliament Act actually meant something (stupid to think that, I know). There would be no 'power grab' snap election.

2. I didn't think the Tories would go all out for UKIP voters. (Makes perfect sense in retrospect. They can win a landslide just by taking half of all UKIP votes, even if the Labour vote share remains constant.)

3. And by chasing the UKIP vote and throwing wild accusations around about fixing our election, we are in the process of destroying the goodwill Europe had for us. Yes, those in high office in the EU know this is silly posturing that can be ignored, but Europe is full of democracies as well. If their electorates get wind of us picking a fight, they will demand their leaders retaliate, and we'll be annihilated. Or at least we'll be a lot more damaged than them. You might assume our 350m/week contribution to the EU project is large, but it is barely a rounding error compared to the size of the whole EU economy. And 350m was always an over-exaggerated lie anyway.

4. As a result, we are now staring down the barrel of a very right-wing, free-market wasteland run by ultra wealthy Tory donors, with none of the protections afforded by EU laws. There's no way these guys are interested in workers' rights, environmental protection, better wages and conditions:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 24548.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We can't possibly see the future, but all told this is not looking good. I would abstain if the vote was held again.

I'm not informed to an extent, or we'll read enough for that matter, to even start to question or challenge any of your points, but like many others your apocalyptic view of Brexit and the free run of the country by the heartless wealthy Tories, still feels a safer route than a Governmrnt under London centric Corbyn and or to remain in an increasingly federal Europe.

[pureclaret]

I would still vote remain, but would have wanted a bit more steel in the dealings with English law v Europe as I feel it has got ridiculous.
However now thats over with and we have implemented leaving only one party capable of taking on the Europeans and it isnt JC in Labour.
So Ill vote for that nice TM with her shapely legs.

[BennyD]

IIBYW, I agree with a lot of what you posted but I wouldn't be too hasty in writing off any EU election interference too soon. There is a sinister spin merchant, a la Mandelson, called Martin Selmayr who is Juncker's right hand man and he has an awful reputation for scheming and plotting, and with him pulling the strings I wouldn't be surprised at anything that happened. When the 'adequate Mayor of a small European city' enlists the help of such a personality, he's not there to lick stamps and make the tea.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lowbankclaret]

I would still vote leave.
I always believed we would end up having the so called hard brexit.
I voted to rid outselves of the EU law makers and they simply will not accept us having access to the single market without us agreeing to all EU laws.
We need grasp thats whats going to happen and work hard to make it a success.
We will need strong leadership and thats not Corbyn, I am sorry to say.

We will need to be strong in our resolve not to pay the EU a penny in our divorce from the EU. Thats our strongest hand in this negotiation.

[If it be your will]

.

[aggi]

What I think is important to remember is that every reason that you and millions of others voted to leave is still valid today. It was a vote made looking long term, not short term.

An irony here in relation to a different thread and the demographics of leave/remain voters. The voting on this long-term decision was in inverse proportion to those who'll be living with it longest.

Anyway, that's by the by.

I'd have still voted remain. I have seen very little so far to convince me that we're going to come out of the EU with a better deal than what we currently have. My fear is that we are going to come out with some half assed deal that will still leave us signed to a large amount of EU rules but have lost the ability to actually influence them having come out of the union. I could picture us following that up with a trade deal with the US where, in the eagerness to prove we can do trade deals, we make significant concessions and end up in a worse position.

I also see a power grab where increased powers are going to get waved through, the ability to amend EU legislation without going through parliament, the snooper's charter (currently held up in European Courts), throwing the NHS open to American competition, significant "anti-terror" legislation, etc

There's always been a great wooliness about how we're actually going to be better off post-Brexit. There's talk about sovereignty, trade deals, immigration but if you dig down into the meat of that you start seeing things like "we'll need to abide by European court if we want a trade deal with the EU", "immigration levels probably won't change", "we can always fall back to WTO rules". There appears to be little strategy.

[Paul Waine]

Hi iibyw, interesting post #302.

I always regretted that Germany was left to pay for re-unification of east and west alone. If the EU meant anything it should have been a clear EU project. Expanding EU to central Europe, including Poland, Baltic states etc always made sense. However, it was the EU's freedom of movement that led to many central Europeans heading west. One of the businesses I've worked for moved a lot of their European office work in the other direction and opened a major European "back office" in Budapest (10 years ago now). I agree that an oversupplied labour market, especially with new workers arriving from countries where they were used to much lower wage rates will always "hold down" wage growth in the home market. However, the EU set up the freedom of movement rules when there were fewer member states and all economies were a lot closer in terms of "pay and conditions." The Maastricht Treaty was developed by the governments of the EU member states - they are the ones that you suggest are "neo-liberal and pro-business." I still struggle with the term "neo-liberal" (just as I do with some other politically loaded phrases, "progressive" is another of them), but don't we need all our governments to be pro-business? Where would the jobs come from if they weren't? All the "remain" parties are keen to retain access to the EU single market - this is what being "pro-business" means. And, it also means promoting the living standards of the country's people.

So far as fixed term parliament act. It was necessary for the period of coalition government, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg needed this agreement. But, it was a bad idea to say that the fixed term should apply to any parliament after the 2010 coalition.

[bfcjg]

Id still vote to leave. Tony Benn summed up Europe when he said if you dont like me or my party you only have to put up with me for a few years then you can get shut. How do you rid yourself of the likes of Kinnock and Junker ? Also at the moment the European parliament is very liberal what happens if Europe turns right wing and you fill the parliament with clowns like that idiot from Poland who wants women banning from work and also Poland again which is having a religiously motivated purge on the press AKA Turkey.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Yes, I can see how my post might look: I'm changing my mind on Brexit because my team look like they're going to lose the election! This isn't quite right - or at least it's only slightly correct. But that's not the main reason. I didn't think we'd even have an election before Brexit, let alone in the middle of negotiations.

Had I thought the Tories would stay in power without an election, I imagine they would have quietly gone about their business as discreetly as possible getting the best deal they could. In which case I'd stick with leave, and we could all decide who we wanted to run Brexit Britain in 2020. But the calling of an election changed all that. Suddenly the temptation to chase the rawest leave voter has proved too much. May's existing small majority also meant Tory Remainers could have kept the worst excesses of the flag-wavers in check. If she's gifted a huge majority by chasing UKIP, she can ignore the Tory moderates. Electoral genius yes, good for the country no. 2022, I fear, will be too late to fix the reactionary, angry, jingoistic mess we'll have become by then, when we've only got WTO rules to fall back on.

As for where the Tory heart lies, we'll never agree on that. I feel I've lived under enough Tory rule to conclude it certainly doesn't lie with the working classes (and before you say it, no, neither did Blair's).

(For what it's worth, Labour's approach is here:
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... s+position" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'd much rather see this approach than the one we're witnessing at present.)

I fully respect your views on this and whilst not fully agreeing with them all I can see and understand many of the point and concerns you have. I do acknowledge that we all thought only a short time ago that the negotiations would be tied up by 2020 and a new government would then be chosen to pave our way in that brexit future. However, I cannot help but feel that this snap election has more relevance than simply opportunism. I genuinely believe that TM feels this election of needed to get the best deal for Britain. She went back on her word, and made herself look a bit foolish in doing so, she would have been fully aware of the repercussions of doing that but she did it anyway. My suspicion is that she thinks the EU will drag these negotiations out, and she will need the full 5 years, and strong government support and a public mandate to get this done and get it done right.

Alas, due to my young age I haven't lived through many governments, only the Blair one and Cameron's Tories/dems coalition, so you could argue I don't have a lot of good to go off with regards to Labour, hence my distrust. Of the two in my lifetime the Tories certainly seemed to be the better option, while by no means perfect; even from a low income, working class background.

Call me naive but I do actually have a shred of faith in this government to deliver. I may be spectacularly wrong on that one, who knows, but so far I don't have any regrets what so ever, but upon speaking to you, and can understand why some other may do so.

[COYC73]

I voted Leave.....was still leave last week.....will still be leave next week

[If it be your will]

Cheers, ClaretMoffitt.

[Lowbankclaret]

Aggi,
The EU don't do half baked deals.
If you want access to the single market you agree to the four main principles. eND OFF.
You agree to free movement of people, ALL EU laws. Human rights and don't remember the 4th.

We will not get access without it.

As I said I voted to be out and that meant out of the EU completely and that's what will happen.

We will proper but there will be hard times ahead, but we are brits and we will succeed.

[BleedingClaret]

I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you that this thicky racist certainly wasn't prepared for this reality.

I wasn't expecting a remainer to be running Brexit
I can't think what reality you mean, we've said we're leaving, we are still paying them, we are still living by their rules and they are very bitter and spiteful because we are threatening their cash cow.
We've got a Lady in charge threatening to be a bit difficult, they are demanding 100 billion severance and threatening to sanction and impoverish us.
Hard Brexit is a myth, I'd pay them shag all repatriate the nationals of any country that won't trade freely and fairly with us, that's the whole EU as it stands.
Spend a big chunk of the 100 billion protection money they're demanding on our police force, armed forces, border controls including paying the staff of an enlarged RNLI.
Maybe we could then give the that 350 mil to the NHS
Trade freely with all nations on a 1 to 1 basis, and be prepared to defend ourselves economically, culturally and militarily if needs be.

[Spiral]

Hard Brexit is a myth, I'd pay them shag all repatriate the nationals of any country that won't trade freely and fairly with us, that's the whole EU as it stands.
...

Trade freely with all nations on a 1 to 1 basis, and be prepared to defend ourselves economically, culturally and militarily if needs be.

I assume by "all nations" you mean the 'all nations, excluding our current biggest trading partner the EU', because we literally can't negotiate let alone ratify FTAs with EU member sates on a one-to-one basis.

Also, what on Earth does defending ourselves 'culturally' mean? Do you mean stop the 'Pakis' from coming in? Because the govt. actually has a degree of control over that but chooses to do next to nothing about it. Quelle surprise, Tories like cheap labour.

[Lancasterclaret]

Hard Brexit is a myth, I'd pay them shag all repatriate the nationals of any country that won't trade freely and fairly with us, that's the whole EU as it stands.
Spend a big chunk of the 100 billion protection money they're demanding on our police force, armed forces, border controls including paying the staff of an enlarged RNLI.
Maybe we could then give the that 350 mil to the NHS
Trade freely with all nations on a 1 to 1 basis, and be prepared to defend ourselves economically, culturally and militarily if needs be.

JFW

[Spiral]

I was going to post about ignoring the lessons learned from the 20th century about nationalism, jingoism, populism, repatriation, protectionism, isolationism etc but put the brakes on that angle for apprehension about approaching reductio ad Hitlerum, God forbid.

[BleedingClaret]

I assume by "all nations" you mean the 'all nations, excluding our current biggest trading partner the EU', because we literally can't negotiate let alone ratify FTAs with EU member sates on a one-to-one basis.

Also, what on Earth does defending ourselves 'culturally' mean? Do you mean stop the 'Pakis' from coming in? Because the govt. actually has a degree of control over that but chooses to do next to nothing about it. Quelle surprise, Tories like cheap labour.

It includes every country in the EU if they will free themselves to the an extent that they are free to trade on a 1 to 1 basis with another country.
Depends where you live, but for me not living quite where I grew up but close enough to have known the town that I now live in 30 yrs ago and to see it change virtually beyond recognition, spoilt, by a people put upon it in large numbers who never cared for it or it's people, not their fault, but by idealistic cultural/political policies akin to those now being enforced the EU.

[BleedingClaret]

JFW

No idea what that means but I expect it's an insult and very clever to.

[BleedingClaret]

I was going to post about ignoring the lessons learned from the 20th century about nationalism, jingoism, populism, repatriation, protectionism, isolationism etc but put the brakes on that angle for apprehension about approaching reductio ad Hitlerum, God forbid.

Not a clue what chunks of that mean.
Maybe the lessons were only learnt in a way that why risk losing militarily again, when you can control other countries by enshrining them in debt and or monetary reliance
Docebat

[If it be your will]

.

[Spiral]

It includes every country in the EU if they will free themselves to the an extent that they are free to trade on a 1 to 1 basis with another country.

Okay, I see. Your post-Brexit vision is entirely contingent on the secession of further member states. This is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely given the rejection of anti-EU candidates in the recent Dutch and French elections. The domino effect leave campaigners predicted is looking very unlikely.

[Spiral]

JFW=Jesus effing wept. Coincidentally, I actually remember asking Lancaster what it meant about four years ago over on ClaretsMad. I'd never read in before then. True story.

[aggi]

I wasn't expecting a remainer to be running Brexit
I can't think what reality you mean, we've said we're leaving, we are still paying them, we are still living by their rules and they are very bitter and spiteful because we are threatening their cash cow.
We've got a Lady in charge threatening to be a bit difficult, they are demanding 100 billion severance and threatening to sanction and impoverish us.
Hard Brexit is a myth, I'd pay them shag all repatriate the nationals of any country that won't trade freely and fairly with us, that's the whole EU as it stands.
Spend a big chunk of the 100 billion protection money they're demanding on our police force, armed forces, border controls including paying the staff of an enlarged RNLI.
Maybe we could then give the that 350 mil to the NHS
Trade freely with all nations on a 1 to 1 basis, and be prepared to defend ourselves economically, culturally and militarily if needs be.

Some people are going to be very disappointed when the brexit deal finally comes through.

[aggi]

Do you know, I don't know either! (To my shame I was too embarrassed to ask, though.)

I guessed what it meant but the first entry on urban dictionary was Just f'ing works which I struggled to tie in with the post it was quoting.

[Spiral]

Not a clue what chunks of that mean.
Maybe the lessons were only learnt in a way that why risk losing militarily again, when you can control other countries by enshrining them in debt and or monetary reliance
Docebat

Some places in some countries (including ours) have undoubtedly been left behind by globalisation and it is the responsibility of government in those countries to ensure that those affected places are supported; successive governments have failed in this respect. If I'm following you correctly, however, what you view as, how to put it, debt occupation? Financial subordination?...is part overly cynical and part misguided. Reducing barriers to trade, be it in the form of free-trade agreements or a common market, provides a mutual big-picture benefit to both/all members. If you were talking about the eurozone (if that's what you mean by monetary reliance?) I'd tend to agree with you, but we aren't in the eurozone, never were, and never will be. We're talking about the EU.

[If it be your will]

.

[HunterST_BFC]

Far too much "cut and paste" going on.

Certain...
It will get light in the morning. Go dark in the evening.

...and

Nothing on this thread will change anything anyway?

[BleedingClaret]

Okay, I see. Your post-Brexit vision is entirely contingent on the secession of further member states. This is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely given the rejection of anti-EU candidates in the recent Dutch and French elections. The domino effect leave campaigners predicted is looking very unlikely.

it will be an interesting conversation to have in 10 years time.
Depends how we do, yes we'd be much better with a trading agreement with all EU countries, hey even a common market, but the current set up is much more a political organisation using monetary controls and demands as power and obligation.
France voted to defeat a French Right Wing Extremist, her aligning of herself with Brexit was nonsense, we had not voted in a party like UkIP that was formerly a party like BNP.

[Lancasterclaret]

Been plenty of elections in Europe since Brexit Bleeding.

As it stands only one country has blown its own feet off.

[BleedingClaret]

I meant to respond to this at the time, but forgot. Apologies.

First, I genuinely believe Corbyn isn't anything like as unhinged as he's made out to be. There really isn't anything (of substance) to say he's anything other than boringly measured, really. History has shown time and time again that when everyone else was being whipped up into a state of frenzy - leading to bad decision-making with equally dire results - Corbyn did the boringly measured thing. This basically involves stepping back and asking "Is what we're planning to do actually going to work, though?" This can be seen as weak and indecisive. I happen to think the opposite. He was one of only 13 MPs to vote against the invasion of Libya, for instance. That takes strength. Everyone (with any sense) now agrees the invasion of Libya was an insane and ruinous thing to have done.

Any minute now the Conservatives are planning to bombard the airwaves with Corbyn's historic relations with Sinn Fein and the IRA. When this happens, it is important to remember that Corbyn was one of the very few people to have grasped the undeniable truth: the only hope for peace ultimately rested with sitting down and talking to Sinn Fein. Communication channels simply had to be kept open. We now have the Good Friday agreement. Took guts, did that. When you hear smears of 'terrorist sympathiser' against Corbyn, just remember - the Tories branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Corbyn campaigned hard for his release from prison.

This article is old, but it describes his record beautifully:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... bya-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Credit where it is due, the Tories have a (reasonably) strong record of not breaking explicit manifesto promises. (The recent climbdown from increasing national insurance on the self-employed is a good example; their promises on immigration are not.) But they have a truly awful record of doing things that were NOT in their manifesto, and would have been deeply unpopular had they been explicitly included.

The worrying thing about this election is that the Tories are probably going to commit to hardly anything in their manifesto this time. If this turns out to be the case, I will be deeply worried about what it is they are actually planning. 'Apocalyptic' is probably a bit strong. 'Really rather dreadful' (for the average person), probably isn't, however.

Thanks for your reply mate, i'm not well read at all, so much of this is an education for me.
A girl I once knew, who was a member of the Labour Party, once told me when I was expressing my views vociferously, to get involved and do something about it, or shut up.
I didn't get involved and have mostly shut up on Politics, nothing else mind, for years.
This whole Brexit thing has got me going.

Reference Corbyn, if for example you made him Defence Minister, you'd have years of non confrontational peace, but you would have had to also turn a blind eye to many situations or have diplomatically failed to effect anything because you had no force or threat of behind it to back it up.
If eventually it was the last resort you'd realise you had no forces ready or prepared to do anything about it before it was too late.
Let's faces he would, despite the leaked Manifest, scrap Trident, and we'd be in more threat than we are now.
He's an idealist, but some of his ideals have been tried and failed before.
He's in a bubble where probably 5 million people do think he's the Messiah.That's why I think he's a little deluded, cos those who love him absolutely adore him, and that's what he sees and is surrounded by.

[Lancasterclaret]

I agree that if you back trident, then its not safe in JCs hands.

I think he's been elected at the wrong time internationally, there is far too much going on and a lot of potential issues that he's completely not capable of understanding or wanting to sort out (there is a limit to just how far talking about stuff gets you with certain groups and people).

If he'd been elected in the mid-90s for example, I reckon he'd have a chance, but not now.

[BleedingClaret]

Okay, I see. Your post-Brexit vision is entirely contingent on the secession of further member states. This is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely given the rejection of anti-EU candidates in the recent Dutch and French elections. The domino effect leave campaigners predicted is looking very unlikely.

I don't mind what the other countries of the EU do, I'm happy if it all prospers.
For more than trading reasons and not pure Nationalistic reasons, I wanted out.
I think quite simply the Common Market has turned into a Federal United States of Europe.
Millions of people have died within the last century to protect our free democracy, that was threatened IMO

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't want to row with you, and absolutely fair play for finding out stuff about this ( I wish far more would take the time and effort to do that)

But I don't understand your last point?

Millions of EU citizens have died to protect democracy as well, and all the Eastern European members had no say under Soviet control. Why would they want a undemocratic EU run from Brussels?

[BleedingClaret]

Some people are going to be very disappointed when the brexit deal finally comes through.

I'm already disappointed because we are going to be tied in for 10 years and punished for wanting our own control.
At the moment we look like a shaky little victim of a loan shark, saying tough things but scared to go outside.

[Lancasterclaret]

Again, you surely can see the potential downfall of us just walking out on already agreed and democratically decided deals with the EU?

[BleedingClaret]

I don't want to row with you, and absolutely fair play for finding out stuff about this ( I wish far more would take the time and effort to do that)

But I don't understand your last point?

Millions of EU citizens have died to protect democracy as well, and all the Eastern European members had no say under Soviet control. Why would they want a undemocratic EU run from Brussels?

I agree totally, with the contrasts between East & West after the last war, and you could say careful what you wish for.
Yes the EU is not like being behind the Iron Curtain, but look and consider it's political and monetary and cultural remoulding of Europe has led not only to Brexit, but the French version of BNP in the Guise of a UKIP getting a third of votes. If they , the EU, continue as they are, she may well win power in 10 years time.
Also it is not the Michael Foot left or the National Front Right that has led Brexit, but really a swell of the middle ground of people and politicians.

[Lancasterclaret]

Cheers, see your point there (but don't agree with it!)

[BleedingClaret]

Again, you surely can see the potential downfall of us just walking out on already agreed and democratically decided deals with the EU?

I can, totally, but along with the Theresa May standpoint, No deal better than a bad deal, they need to be fair or we need to be tough. the settlement lies somewhere in between
They are asking too much, and we need a deal, but it's an initial bargaining position, to 2 extremes.
A majority of British people, over 17 million a number larger than any that has previously even voted in a British Government, said that the terms were unacceptable.
Cameron went to Europe and campaigned for better terms, in an unsustainable situation, with the threat of a Referendum as a back up to the negotiations and Europe just treated it with disdain, they had an opportunity to head all this off but they did not respect or read the mood of the majority of the English people, neither did the minority of English people and the rest of the British people.

[Lancasterclaret]

Not sure if you've been following all these discussions, but my beef with Brexit has always been the economic impact.

No deal means WTO rules (which we are currently a member of....through our membership of the EU).

Thats a disaster in purely economic terms. That effects everybody, whether they be pro or remain.

I take your point (and agree to some extent) that a lot of this is just posturing for positions, but the mere fact that we are talking about "No deal is better than a bad deal" is very worrying.

[SonofPog]

....
I think quite simply the Common Market has turned into a Federal United States of Europe.
Millions of people have died within the last century to protect our free democracy, that was threatened IMO

‘We cannot aim at anything less than the Union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that Union will be achieved.’

Crucially, in answering the question ‘Are you prepared to part with any degree of national sovereignty in any circumstances for the sake of a larger synthesis?’, He responded..

‘We are prepared to consider and, if convinced, to accept the abrogation of national sovereignty, provided that we are satisfied with the conditions and the safeguards… national sovereignty is not inviolable, and it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all men in all the lands finding their way home together.’

A man often credited with be the greatest Briton. A certain WWII hero, Winston Churchill.

(Yes I know his position was more complicated than these two quotes made out - you can read more here
http://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2013/11 ... ean-union/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

- - -

For my own opinion, I'm saddened by the vote, I still think it's a great mistake, our loss of "sovereignty" comes not from the EU, but from the power of rising MutliNationals companies that dictate the agenda and terms of any interaction.
With TTP there was something like 600 "lobbying sessions" about 530 were with MN companies. The general public was not allowed to see the draft version. And it would / will give corporations the right to sue governments in a secret court for the loss of future profits on any decision they make. Pass an anti smoking bill? Get sued by Tobbaco companies. Etc.

So if we're actually worried about loss of sovereignty, maybe we should start there? Cause I just don't think the EU making us use decent lightbulbs is quite on the same level.

Anyway, it's happening, like the French that started with wanted the royals to pay their debts and ended up chopping their heads off, we wanted a bit more control on immigration and now we're likely to end up with full on Hard Brexit, no one really knows what's going to happen, so let's take some Bill Hicks advice and just "enjoy the ride".

[BleedingClaret]

Not sure if you've been following all these discussions, but my beef with Brexit has always been the economic impact.

No deal means WTO rules (which we are currently a member of....through our membership of the EU).

Thats a disaster in purely economic terms. That effects everybody, whether they be pro or remain.

I take your point (and agree to some extent) that a lot of this is just posturing for positions, but the mere fact that we are talking about "No deal is better than a bad deal" is very worrying.

I agree about no deal, but there can't really be no deal, because for a start it would cost them 100 billion initially and in the long term destroy loads of British & European companies and if you look at the quote after yours about Multi nationals they wouldn't 'allow' it to happen.
The term 'allow' leads us to a greater issue regarding Sovereignty and Democracy, and brings me back to be careful what you wish for, is the EU worse than the Soviet Union, no, is it worse than Globalization Controlled by banking and Multi nationals, no.
The EU is not the devil, but is clearly starting to be affected and controlled by these forces, and the effects are starting to show. The Euro was creating havoc, Greece seemed like a Guinea Pig for rendering a country unable to support itself, and if it suited for example the United States for Turkey to be in Europe as a sweetener for obstruction to Russia it would be in, we couldn't stop it, how could Greece object if offered a bailout.
I'm starting to sound like a Conspiracy theorists, but we are all pretty sure that wars have been fought in the name of oil and we know it is not the banks that are paying the price for the banking crash, that was not a crash but a finding out of false wealth creation that is now being paid for by austerity.
I voted for Brexit, do i think a Tory government will care for the British people more than The European Union, again no, but I think it, the EU, is becoming so much more than a trading organisation, Human Rights and Workers Rights, social issue great, but becoming a dumping ground for the carnage of oil & power wars in the Middle East is a disastrous course, Europe, us included is to blame for much of what is and has gone on from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya to Syria even if a lot is only by association to the Bloody Americans.
The Americans ban the sorts of people that make up these Refugees and Europe is flooded with people that will find themselves dumped into the worst areas of the worst towns, mostly become impoverished but within sight of some obscene wealth within a country that they will be then bred and brought up to blame for their plight.
Yes we need to stop supplying arms to Saudi Arabia, Yes we need to stop deposing dictators and then leaving civil wars to break out,
Will a Tory government do all this NO,
Brexit is our route back to our full Parliamentary Democracy and we can then start to unilaterally effect our impact on the world, rather than being dragged along.
Yes we need to trade with our European neighbors but we need to get off the merry go round first.