Brexit gives everyone THREE MONTH paid holidays!!

[Bulletguy]

 

What hope is there when a Government in it's frantic desperation to get out some kind of White paper on it's Brexit "plans" can't even get something as simple as paid holiday entitlement right? *-)

 

A chart in the paper comparing British and EU standards for holiday leave and maternity leave claims Britons are entitled to 14 weeks paid holiday a year – ten further than stipulated under EU law.

 

In fact, British workers are entitled to five weeks holiday, just slightly more than the basic standard required by the union.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-white-paper-embarassing-error-chart-14-weeks-holiday-a7559561.html

[Guest pelmetman]

Oh dear the sky didn't fall in with all that end of the world scaremongering ;-) .......

 

So are clerical errors the new scare tactic? (lol) ........

 

 

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2017-02-03 6:44 PM

 

Oh dear the sky didn't fall in with all that end of the world scaremongering ;-) .......

 

So are clerical errors the new scare tactic? (lol) ........

 

The "scary" part apart from not even being able to get British workers leave right, are all the dummies expecting countries to be lining up falling over their feet to do trade with UK (doesn't seem to be much of a stampede).

[RogerC]

An easy point for ridicule BUT it is clear that there really does need to be a united front in order to obtain the best deal for the UK with regard to leaving the monolith that is the German dominated state of Europe.....

If that is an indication of how low the 'remain' camp has sunk I for one feel sorry for them.

[Archiesgrandad]

We are not allowed to negotiate trade agreements with countries outside the EU whilst we are members, but wouldn't you think that exploritary talks are taking place between interested parties, and that they would be kept under wraps for the time being.

 

We have a legitimate government responding to a democratically held referendum to leave the EU. I expect them to do all within their power to secure the best possible outcome for our country, and it seems reasonable to me that they should not divulge their plans prematurly. It really would be helpful if all the people who did not get the outcome they expected could temper their language and stop trying to impose their undemocratic will on this country. We really will get a better deal if we stop telling our EU cousins that they need to make no concessions at the negotiation because some of you appear helbent on a programme to destroy our country if you can't have your own way.

What do you hope to gain by destroying ourn democratic country?

AGD

[Barryd999]

Archiesgrandad - 2017-02-04 12:12 AM

 

We are not allowed to negotiate trade agreements with countries outside the EU whilst we are members, but wouldn't you think that exploritary talks are taking place between interested parties, and that they would be kept under wraps for the time being.

 

We have a legitimate government responding to a democratically held referendum to leave the EU. I expect them to do all within their power to secure the best possible outcome for our country, and it seems reasonable to me that they should not divulge their plans prematurly. It really would be helpful if all the people who did not get the outcome they expected could temper their language and stop trying to impose their undemocratic will on this country. We really will get a better deal if we stop telling our EU cousins that they need to make no concessions at the negotiation because some of you appear helbent on a programme to destroy our country if you can't have your own way.

What do you hope to gain by destroying ourn democratic country?

AGD

 

There are many who believe the entire way the referendum was run was a disgrace to democracy. Then we have the PM trying to go ahead and bypass Parliament, again undemocratic

 

It is now every citizens right and all in Parliament to have their say on the type of exit we end up with or if it becomes the will of the majority of the people over the next year or so no exit at all. if that means discussing Brexit in public warts and all then so be it.

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-02-04 12:31 AM

Archiesgrandad - 2017-02-04 12:12 AMWe are not allowed to negotiate trade agreements with countries outside the EU whilst we are members, but wouldn't you think that exploritary talks are taking place between interested parties, and that they would be kept under wraps for the time being.We have a legitimate government responding to a democratically held referendum to leave the EU. I expect them to do all within their power to secure the best possible outcome for our country, and it seems reasonable to me that they should not divulge their plans prematurly. It really would be helpful if all the people who did not get the outcome they expected could temper their language and stop trying to impose their undemocratic will on this country. We really will get a better deal if we stop telling our EU cousins that they need to make no concessions at the negotiation because some of you appear helbent on a programme to destroy our country if you can't have your own way.What do you hope to gain by destroying ourn democratic country?AGD

There are many who believe the entire way the referendum was run was a disgrace to democracy. Then we have the PM trying to go ahead and bypass Parliament, again undemocraticIt is now every citizens right and all in Parliament to have their say on the type of exit we end up with or if it becomes the will of the majority of the people over the next year or so no exit at all. if that means discussing Brexit in public warts and all then so be it.

I totally disagree.... Archiesgrandad clearly 'get's it' whereas there are those that think all and everything should be out there in the public domain.....what nonsense!!!!

The referendum was a 'DEMOCRATIC' vote and those that can not accept the outcome are clearly not democratically minded.  Maybe they should go and live under a dictatorship elsewhere if they are unable to be adult and mature enough to accept the outcome and the will of the majority and get behind the country instead of doing it down at every minuscule opportunity.

As for every citizens right to have their say in the type of exit that is negotiated!!!!   At a guess I would say almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations.  Anyone who thinks otherwise.....that 'Joe Public' has the right to 'their say'.....'warts and all'  (give away our thoughts prior to negotiations?  someone needs to learn how to play poker methinks) is IMO living in cloud cuckoo land.  The referendum and subsequent parliamentary carriage of the approval to enact Article 50 now demands, in the interests of 'The Country'....not party or any other entity...that ALL politicians work irrespective of party politics to obtain the best deal for the UK leaving the EU.  This process, the detail etc is beyond the understanding and capacity of 'Joe Public'.

The population has spoken....democratically....now it is time for the politicians to act on that determination....not against it.

[derek pringle]

Archiesgrandad - 2017-02-04 12:12 AM

 

We are not allowed to negotiate trade agreements with countries outside the EU whilst we are members, but wouldn't you think that exploritary talks are taking place between interested parties, and that they would be kept under wraps for the time being.

 

We have a legitimate government responding to a democratically held referendum to leave the EU. I expect them to do all within their power to secure the best possible outcome for our country, and it seems reasonable to me that they should not divulge their plans prematurly. It really would be helpful if all the people who did not get the outcome they expected could temper their language and stop trying to impose their undemocratic will on this country. We really will get a better deal if we stop telling our EU cousins that they need to make no concessions at the negotiation because some of you appear helbent on a programme to destroy our country if you can't have your own way.

What do you hope to gain by destroying ourn democratic country?

AGD

Hi AGD,

I think you will find we are entitled to negotiate other trade agreements but just not allowed to sign them.

cheers

derek

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-02-04 1:02 AM

Barryd999 - 2017-02-04 12:31 AM

Archiesgrandad - 2017-02-04 12:12 AMWe are not allowed to negotiate trade agreements with countries outside the EU whilst we are members, but wouldn't you think that exploritary talks are taking place between interested parties, and that they would be kept under wraps for the time being.We have a legitimate government responding to a democratically held referendum to leave the EU. I expect them to do all within their power to secure the best possible outcome for our country, and it seems reasonable to me that they should not divulge their plans prematurly. It really would be helpful if all the people who did not get the outcome they expected could temper their language and stop trying to impose their undemocratic will on this country. We really will get a better deal if we stop telling our EU cousins that they need to make no concessions at the negotiation because some of you appear helbent on a programme to destroy our country if you can't have your own way.What do you hope to gain by destroying ourn democratic country?AGD

There are many who believe the entire way the referendum was run was a disgrace to democracy. Then we have the PM trying to go ahead and bypass Parliament, again undemocraticIt is now every citizens right and all in Parliament to have their say on the type of exit we end up with or if it becomes the will of the majority of the people over the next year or so no exit at all. if that means discussing Brexit in public warts and all then so be it.

I totally disagree.... Archiesgrandad clearly 'get's it' whereas there are those that think all and everything should be out there in the public domain.....what nonsense!!!!

The referendum was a 'DEMOCRATIC' vote and those that can not accept the outcome are clearly not democratically minded.  Maybe they should go and live under a dictatorship elsewhere if they are unable to be adult and mature enough to accept the outcome and the will of the majority and get behind the country instead of doing it down at every minuscule opportunity.

As for every citizens right to have their say in the type of exit that is negotiated!!!!   At a guess I would say almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations.  Anyone who thinks otherwise.....that 'Joe Public' has the right to 'their say'.....'warts and all'  (give away our thoughts prior to negotiations?  someone needs to learn how to play poker methinks) is IMO living in cloud cuckoo land.  The referendum and subsequent parliamentary carriage of the approval to enact Article 50 now demands, in the interests of 'The Country'....not party or any other entity...that ALL politicians work irrespective of party politics to obtain the best deal for the UK leaving the EU.  This process, the detail etc is beyond the understanding and capacity of 'Joe Public'.

The population has spoken....democratically....now it is time for the politicians to act on that determination....not against it.

I think there’s a popular myth that referenda are a great tool of democracy in the sense that they always confer greater power to all the people. Do you want red waste bins or green ones? might be an issue that is suitable for one but do you want a known situation rather than one we don’t have full control over? is anti-democratic. That is because of the obvious risk is that a number of people who voted for an outcome that could not be guaranteed still won’t get what they thought they were getting negating the way the vote went in the first place. There are two layers to this in relation to Brexit, the vote is not only potentially negated by the number of people who wish they hadn’t voted the way they had due to the eventual outcome and is also quite demonstrably negated by the very fact that parliament gets a say in what the terms of our negotiation should be not the entire electorate. This applies whether you want a hard Brexit or a soft one does it not? I understand where Fallon is coming from but this problem cannot be rectified by holding another referendum on what the terms of the deal should be for the obvious reason that we have to minimise the leverage of the EU in the negotiations. The problem was with the suggestion that we should hold a referendum in the first place on an issue of this type. People thought they were being given power to determine our relationship with Europe but in truth they were not. Did anyone see Tracy Ullman’s Angela Merkel sketches last night? There’s one celeb who should be popular with the Brexit brigade. ;-) Veronica

[John52]

Violet1956 - 2017-02-04 10:50 AM

 

the obvious risk is that a number of people who voted for an outcome that could not be guaranteed

 

Veronica

Thats a very good point.

Brexiteers voted for something we cannot get.

[RogerC]

Violet1956 - 2017-02-04 10:50 AM

RogerC - 2017-02-04 1:02 AM

Barryd999 - 2017-02-04 12:31 AM

Archiesgrandad - 2017-02-04 12:12 AMWe are not allowed to negotiate trade agreements with countries outside the EU whilst we are members, but wouldn't you think that exploritary talks are taking place between interested parties, and that they would be kept under wraps for the time being.We have a legitimate government responding to a democratically held referendum to leave the EU. I expect them to do all within their power to secure the best possible outcome for our country, and it seems reasonable to me that they should not divulge their plans prematurly. It really would be helpful if all the people who did not get the outcome they expected could temper their language and stop trying to impose their undemocratic will on this country. We really will get a better deal if we stop telling our EU cousins that they need to make no concessions at the negotiation because some of you appear helbent on a programme to destroy our country if you can't have your own way.What do you hope to gain by destroying ourn democratic country?AGD

There are many who believe the entire way the referendum was run was a disgrace to democracy. Then we have the PM trying to go ahead and bypass Parliament, again undemocraticIt is now every citizens right and all in Parliament to have their say on the type of exit we end up with or if it becomes the will of the majority of the people over the next year or so no exit at all. if that means discussing Brexit in public warts and all then so be it.

I totally disagree.... Archiesgrandad clearly 'get's it' whereas there are those that think all and everything should be out there in the public domain.....what nonsense!!!!

The referendum was a 'DEMOCRATIC' vote and those that can not accept the outcome are clearly not democratically minded.  Maybe they should go and live under a dictatorship elsewhere if they are unable to be adult and mature enough to accept the outcome and the will of the majority and get behind the country instead of doing it down at every minuscule opportunity.

As for every citizens right to have their say in the type of exit that is negotiated!!!!   At a guess I would say almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations.  Anyone who thinks otherwise.....that 'Joe Public' has the right to 'their say'.....'warts and all'  (give away our thoughts prior to negotiations?  someone needs to learn how to play poker methinks) is IMO living in cloud cuckoo land.  The referendum and subsequent parliamentary carriage of the approval to enact Article 50 now demands, in the interests of 'The Country'....not party or any other entity...that ALL politicians work irrespective of party politics to obtain the best deal for the UK leaving the EU.  This process, the detail etc is beyond the understanding and capacity of 'Joe Public'.

The population has spoken....democratically....now it is time for the politicians to act on that determination....not against it.

I think there’s a popular myth that referenda are a great tool of democracy in the sense that they always confer greater power to all the people. Do you want red waste bins or green ones? might be an issue that is suitable for one but do you want a known situation rather than one we don’t have full control over? is anti-democratic. That is because of the obvious risk is that a number of people who voted for an outcome that could not be guaranteed still won’t get what they thought they were getting negating the way the vote went in the first place. There are two layers to this in relation to Brexit, the vote is not only potentially negated by the number of people who wish they hadn’t voted the way they had due to the eventual outcome and is also quite demonstrably negated by the very fact that parliament gets a say in what the terms of our negotiation should be not the entire electorate. This applies whether you want a hard Brexit or a soft one does it not? I understand where Fallon is coming from but this problem cannot be rectified by holding another referendum on what the terms of the deal should be for the obvious reason that we have to minimise the leverage of the EU in the negotiations. The problem was with the suggestion that we should hold a referendum in the first place on an issue of this type. People thought they were being given power to determine our relationship with Europe but in truth they were not. Did anyone see Tracy Ullman’s Angela Merkel sketches last night? There’s one celeb who should be popular with the Brexit brigade. ;-) Veronica

I don't have time to respond to each point but would take issue with one in particular which is repeatedly trotted out by the remainers:

That is this:

That is because of the obvious risk is that a number of people who voted for an outcome that could not be guaranteed still won’t get what they thought they were getting negating the way the vote went in the first place.

I say to that that it cuts both ways.  There will clearly be those who wish they had voted in and others who wish they had voted out.....but vote they did.  One places ones 'X' based on what one feels is right at the time.  The question was simple....IN OR OUT.  Both campaining sides lied to further their own case.  Real evidence was thin on the ground because 'no one' can predict the future.

In reality the vote is 'negated' by nothing.  It is what it is....a majority vote to leave the EU.

Strangely there has been an ongoing outcry, albeit not overtly vociferous these days, regarding the insidious creep of the bureaucratic monolith that is the EU into our daily lives.....idiotic legislation, forcing metrication on our weights and measures....buying fuel in ltrs not gallons...remember that one....traders brought to court for refusing to convert to metric (to name a few that immediately spring to mind)....people really didn't like it.  So there has been an underlying dislike in many households of the growth, expansion, intrusion and domination of our daily lives relative to that which we joined in the first place.....the EEC.  Possibly the unacceptable change of the social fabric in some areas brought about by the sheer weight of numbers of 'foreign'...(read EU citizens)precipitated the tip over into the 'out' mindset.

So please lets not keep on with the tiring accusation that those who voted 'out' didn't know what they were voting for because conversely those who voted 'in', had they won, really had and indeed have no idea of how or what the EU is going to morph into in the future.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-04 2:36 PM

.traders brought to court for refusing to convert to metric (to name a few that immediately spring to mind)....people really didn't like it.  

Some people didn't like it. Different units of measurement help to confuse the customer and enable traders to get away with charging more. Some people too thick or bigoted to learn the new measurements etc.

But who could argue 16 oz to the pound, 14 pounds to the stone, 8 stone to the cwt, 20 cwt to the ton etc was a better system than metrication?

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-04 2:48 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-04 2:36 PM.traders brought to court for refusing to convert to metric (to name a few that immediately spring to mind)....people really didn't like it.  

Some people didn't like it. Different units of measurement help to confuse the customer and enable traders to get away with charging more. Some people too thick or bigoted to learn the new measurements etc.But who could argue 16 oz to the pound, 14 pounds to the stone, 8 stone to the cwt, 20 cwt to the ton etc was a better system than metrication?

.....thick?....bigoted?...here we go again.  Can't resist the opportunity of insulting those that do not agree with that which is forced on them.....

No one is arguing it was better, merely that it was imposed on us by the bureaucratic monolith that is now the EU......we were forced into accepting the conversion despite not wanting or asking for it.  Yet another example of the EEC becoming more than an 'Economic' community.....and that is NOT what we joined in January '73.  Strangely it is clear that a rather important item has been forgotten in the current dash to insult, decry etc etc those who voted 'OUT'.  The item is this:

The Labour party initially sought renegotiation of membership. This was toned down to requiring a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain part of the Community. This referendum was duly held in 1975 with a 67% vote in favour of continued membership.  

The Wilson government, as both sides today are accused of doing lied to further their own agenda......According to internal Government documents 

"Wilson and his Government were able to dress up cosmetic changes as a significant deal for Britain, which were then sold to the public as a reason to vote 'Yes’".

...and the world continues to turn and the wheel is once again reinvented!!!!

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2017-02-04 1:02 AM

 

I totally disagree.... Archiesgrandad clearly 'get's it' whereas there are those that think all and everything should be out there in the public domain.....what nonsense!!!!

 

Roger, you keep shouting about Democracy but what you say here is contradictory to the very concept of it.

 

With the exception of security, intelligence and classified information.....everything else should be in the public domain. Otherwise you end up living under a Totalitarian state ruled by autocracy. North Korea does a pretty good job of that where people like you and i would be arrested, and possibly imprisoned for doing what we are doing now (expressing our views on a public forum).

 

You see, democracy enables the very thing you appear to abhor......people continuing to make their voice heard. The referendum divided the country, literally. A marginal percent of 3.7% between Remain and Leave is extremely tiny and not one i'm comfortable with......even had it gone in my favour. But lets for a moment imagine it had. Would i expect all those who voted to Leave to clear off and never utter another word? No of course not.

 

When a Government is elected to power, does the opposition say "ok, that's it we have nothing to say for the next five years"? Of course not. But in the case of the Referendum it's not just five years.......it's irreversable, so no matter what happens all Remain voters plus the many 'Bregretters' are entitled to carry on making the argument. People have a democratic right to know what sort of 'deals' an unelected Prime Minister intends to negotiate on.

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-02-04 2:36 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-02-04 10:50 AM

RogerC - 2017-02-04 1:02 AM

Barryd999 - 2017-02-04 12:31 AM

Archiesgrandad - 2017-02-04 12:12 AMWe are not allowed to negotiate trade agreements with countries outside the EU whilst we are members, but wouldn't you think that exploritary talks are taking place between interested parties, and that they would be kept under wraps for the time being.We have a legitimate government responding to a democratically held referendum to leave the EU. I expect them to do all within their power to secure the best possible outcome for our country, and it seems reasonable to me that they should not divulge their plans prematurly. It really would be helpful if all the people who did not get the outcome they expected could temper their language and stop trying to impose their undemocratic will on this country. We really will get a better deal if we stop telling our EU cousins that they need to make no concessions at the negotiation because some of you appear helbent on a programme to destroy our country if you can't have your own way.What do you hope to gain by destroying ourn democratic country?AGD

There are many who believe the entire way the referendum was run was a disgrace to democracy. Then we have the PM trying to go ahead and bypass Parliament, again undemocraticIt is now every citizens right and all in Parliament to have their say on the type of exit we end up with or if it becomes the will of the majority of the people over the next year or so no exit at all. if that means discussing Brexit in public warts and all then so be it.

I totally disagree.... Archiesgrandad clearly 'get's it' whereas there are those that think all and everything should be out there in the public domain.....what nonsense!!!!

The referendum was a 'DEMOCRATIC' vote and those that can not accept the outcome are clearly not democratically minded.  Maybe they should go and live under a dictatorship elsewhere if they are unable to be adult and mature enough to accept the outcome and the will of the majority and get behind the country instead of doing it down at every minuscule opportunity.

As for every citizens right to have their say in the type of exit that is negotiated!!!!   At a guess I would say almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations.  Anyone who thinks otherwise.....that 'Joe Public' has the right to 'their say'.....'warts and all'  (give away our thoughts prior to negotiations?  someone needs to learn how to play poker methinks) is IMO living in cloud cuckoo land.  The referendum and subsequent parliamentary carriage of the approval to enact Article 50 now demands, in the interests of 'The Country'....not party or any other entity...that ALL politicians work irrespective of party politics to obtain the best deal for the UK leaving the EU.  This process, the detail etc is beyond the understanding and capacity of 'Joe Public'.

The population has spoken....democratically....now it is time for the politicians to act on that determination....not against it.

I think there’s a popular myth that referenda are a great tool of democracy in the sense that they always confer greater power to all the people. Do you want red waste bins or green ones? might be an issue that is suitable for one but do you want a known situation rather than one we don’t have full control over? is anti-democratic. That is because of the obvious risk is that a number of people who voted for an outcome that could not be guaranteed still won’t get what they thought they were getting negating the way the vote went in the first place. There are two layers to this in relation to Brexit, the vote is not only potentially negated by the number of people who wish they hadn’t voted the way they had due to the eventual outcome and is also quite demonstrably negated by the very fact that parliament gets a say in what the terms of our negotiation should be not the entire electorate. This applies whether you want a hard Brexit or a soft one does it not? I understand where Fallon is coming from but this problem cannot be rectified by holding another referendum on what the terms of the deal should be for the obvious reason that we have to minimise the leverage of the EU in the negotiations. The problem was with the suggestion that we should hold a referendum in the first place on an issue of this type. People thought they were being given power to determine our relationship with Europe but in truth they were not. Did anyone see Tracy Ullman’s Angela Merkel sketches last night? There’s one celeb who should be popular with the Brexit brigade. ;-) Veronica

I don't have time to respond to each point but would take issue with one in particular which is repeatedly trotted out by the remainers:

That is this:

That is because of the obvious risk is that a number of people who voted for an outcome that could not be guaranteed still won’t get what they thought they were getting negating the way the vote went in the first place.

I say to that that it cuts both ways.  There will clearly be those who wish they had voted in and others who wish they had voted out.....but vote they did.  One places ones 'X' based on what one feels is right at the time.  The question was simple....IN OR OUT.  Both campaining sides lied to further their own case.  Real evidence was thin on the ground because 'no one' can predict the future.

In reality the vote is 'negated' by nothing.  It is what it is....a majority vote to leave the EU.

Strangely there has been an ongoing outcry, albeit not overtly vociferous these days, regarding the insidious creep of the bureaucratic monolith that is the EU into our daily lives.....idiotic legislation, forcing metrication on our weights and measures....buying fuel in ltrs not gallons...remember that one....traders brought to court for refusing to convert to metric (to name a few that immediately spring to mind)....people really didn't like it.  So there has been an underlying dislike in many households of the growth, expansion, intrusion and domination of our daily lives relative to that which we joined in the first place.....the EEC.  Possibly the unacceptable change of the social fabric in some areas brought about by the sheer weight of numbers of 'foreign'...(read EU citizens)precipitated the tip over into the 'out' mindset.

So please lets not keep on with the tiring accusation that those who voted 'out' didn't know what they were voting for because conversely those who voted 'in', had they won, really had and indeed have no idea of how or what the EU is going to morph into in the future.

The rugby is on soon so I have time to respond as the OH has announced there will be no trash TW viewing tonight. I agree with you Roger. It does cut both ways. Some may believe that I was a bit lily-livered in that I voted to remain in part because of a fear of the unknown. There's lots I don't like about the consequences of membership but I'm not a risk taker. It may be what is negotiated will suit me fine in the end because the UK may indeed be better off outside of EU. It remains to be seen whether that is the case but I truly hope that it is. I still maintain that the referendum was not a model of democracy in action for the reasons I have given because we the people won't and ought not to get a say on the terms of the exit because of the mechanism that applies to it. I wonder whether the Lisbon Treaty which introduced Article 50 was a bit of a stitch up, and sadly one which our government at the time did not forsee. This is new territory and the UK's experience may provide the impetus for other EU states that are unhappy with the burdens of membership to seek amendments to Article 50. Had it been drafted so as to allow notice to be rescinded then individual states would have been given more leverage in respect of the amendment of EU rules that they believed were a disbenefit to them.Veronica

[ROND]

14 Weeks !!! that's for MPs only

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-02-04 2:36 PM....................The referendum was a 'DEMOCRATIC' vote and those that can not accept the outcome are clearly not democratically minded.  Maybe they should go and live under a dictatorship elsewhere if they are unable to be adult and mature enough to accept the outcome and the will of the majority and get behind the country instead of doing it down at every minuscule opportunity. As for every citizens right to have their say in the type of exit that is negotiated!!!!   At a guess I would say almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations.  Anyone who thinks otherwise.....that 'Joe Public' has the right to 'their say'.....'warts and all'  ........................... is IMO living in cloud cuckoo land.

Apologies for the carve up, but to try to keep the copyover minimal.

 

This seems contradictory, to me. On the one hand, the vote is held to be democratic: on the other hand, it is stated above that "almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations". So, given the complexity of the issues, and the rather harsh view on the ability of ordinary people to understand such complex issues, how can it have been democratic to charge those uncomprehending masses with deciding on the most complex issues that the country has faced since our modern democratic procedures were adopted? There is nothing democratic about asking the ignorant and uninformed to make decisions on issues they don't understand. Quite the reverse, I would say.

 

 The referendum and subsequent parliamentary carriage of the approval to enact Article 50 now demands, in the interests of 'The Country'....not party or any other entity...that ALL politicians work irrespective of party politics to obtain the best deal for the UK leaving the EU.  This process, the detail etc is beyond the understanding and capacity of 'Joe Public'. The population has spoken....democratically....now it is time for the politicians to act on that determination....not against it..........................

So, if the politicians now find that they cannot negotiate an outcome that will satisfy the public's expectations for economic success, they should merely suspend their own judgements and sign up to what they know is a bad deal for the country? That is not what I consider I'm paying them to do on my behalf. Apart from anything else, it would be just another abdication of their responsibilities.

 

.......................................... because of the obvious risk that a number of people who voted for an outcome that could not be guaranteed still won’t get what they thought they were getting negating the way the vote went in the first place. I say to that that it cuts both ways.  There will clearly be those who wish they had voted in and others who wish they had voted out.....but vote they did.  One places ones 'X' based on what one feels is right at the time.  The question was simple....IN OR OUT.  Both campaining sides lied to further their own case.  Real evidence was thin on the ground because 'no one' can predict the future.

Indeed, the question was simple. Indeed, both sides lied to further their own case. Indeed, real evidence was thin on the ground. But, this was not because such evidence doesn't exist, or because it concerns the future, it was because the information was not made available. It could, and should, have been. Had this been done, the referendum could have approached democratic standards, albeit it may not have resulted in a different outcome.

 

In reality the vote is 'negated' by nothing.  It is what it is....a majority vote to leave the EU. Strangely there has been an ongoing outcry, albeit not overtly vociferous these days, regarding the insidious creep of the bureaucratic monolith that is the EU into our daily lives.....idiotic legislation, forcing metrication on our weights and measures....buying fuel in ltrs not gallons...remember that one....traders brought to court for refusing to convert to metric (to name a few that immediately spring to mind)....people really didn't like it.  So there has been an underlying dislike in many households of the growth, expansion, intrusion and domination of our daily lives relative to that which we joined in the first place.....the EEC.  Possibly the unacceptable change of the social fabric in some areas brought about by the sheer weight of numbers of 'foreign'...(read EU citizens) precipitated the tip over into the 'out' mindset.

 

But, most of the reason for these dislikes, as illustrated above, is mere resistance to change. It should be borne in mind that every regulation emanating from the EU was contributed to, and voted on by, UK MEPs and those UK government ministers who make up part of the EU Council. This "bureaucratic monolith" is a myth. It does not reflect the structure of the EU. The bureaucrats do not run the EU, any more than Germany does: the 28 nation states, acting in concert, do. Free movement of people was one of the founding principles of the EEC, and was carried over into the EU. How many EEC/EU citizens come to work and live in the UK was always within the control of UK governments, but they failed to exercise those controls. That is a fault, but it is not the fault of the EU, and it is perverse to cite that as a reason for leaving.

 

So please lets not keep on with the tiring accusation that those who voted 'out' didn't know what they were voting for because conversely those who voted 'in', had they won, really had and indeed have no idea of how or what the EU is going to morph into in the future.

Hence my confusion. Contrast the above, with the comment that "As for every citizens right to have their say in the type of exit that is negotiated!!!! At a guess I would say almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations." How is that people understanding what they were voting for?

 

It is these continuing contradictions that persuade those of who were comfortable being a part of the EU, and saw (and see) no problem with continuing our membership, that the referendum was a mistake of historic proportions, decided on the basis of emotion and misunderstanding, and it is why, when invited to shut up because we lost, we say we will not, because we think that the country will be done great damage by leaving, in all those areas that those 99.99999% of the uninformed did not understand.

 

A vote does not define democracy, a majority has no monopoly on being right, and no democrat should ever shut up when they believe a majority has got things badly wrong.

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-07 11:30 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-02-04 2:36 PM....................The referendum was a 'DEMOCRATIC' vote and those that can not accept the outcome are clearly not democratically minded.  Maybe they should go and live under a dictatorship elsewhere if they are unable to be adult and mature enough to accept the outcome and the will of the majority and get behind the country instead of doing it down at every minuscule opportunity. As for every citizens right to have their say in the type of exit that is negotiated!!!!   At a guess I would say almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations.  Anyone who thinks otherwise.....that 'Joe Public' has the right to 'their say'.....'warts and all'  ........................... is IMO living in cloud cuckoo land.

Apologies for the carve up, but to try to keep the copyover minimal.

 

This seems contradictory, to me. On the one hand, the vote is held to be democratic: on the other hand, it is stated above that "almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations". So, given the complexity of the issues, and the rather harsh view on the ability of ordinary people to understand such complex issues, how can it have been democratic to charge those uncomprehending masses with deciding on the most complex issues that the country has faced since our modern democratic procedures were adopted? There is nothing democratic about asking the ignorant and uninformed to make decisions on issues they don't understand. Quite the reverse, I would say.

 

 The referendum and subsequent parliamentary carriage of the approval to enact Article 50 now demands, in the interests of 'The Country'....not party or any other entity...that ALL politicians work irrespective of party politics to obtain the best deal for the UK leaving the EU.  This process, the detail etc is beyond the understanding and capacity of 'Joe Public'. The population has spoken....democratically....now it is time for the politicians to act on that determination....not against it..........................

So, if the politicians now find that they cannot negotiate an outcome that will satisfy the public's expectations for economic success, they should merely suspend their own judgements and sign up to what they know is a bad deal for the country? That is not what I consider I'm paying them to do on my behalf. Apart from anything else, it would be just another abdication of their responsibilities.

 

.......................................... because of the obvious risk that a number of people who voted for an outcome that could not be guaranteed still won’t get what they thought they were getting negating the way the vote went in the first place. I say to that that it cuts both ways.  There will clearly be those who wish they had voted in and others who wish they had voted out.....but vote they did.  One places ones 'X' based on what one feels is right at the time.  The question was simple....IN OR OUT.  Both campaining sides lied to further their own case.  Real evidence was thin on the ground because 'no one' can predict the future.

Indeed, the question was simple. Indeed, both sides lied to further their own case. Indeed, real evidence was thin on the ground. But, this was not because such evidence doesn't exist, or because it concerns the future, it was because the information was not made available. It could, and should, have been. Had this been done, the referendum could have approached democratic standards, albeit it may not have resulted in a different outcome.

 

In reality the vote is 'negated' by nothing.  It is what it is....a majority vote to leave the EU. Strangely there has been an ongoing outcry, albeit not overtly vociferous these days, regarding the insidious creep of the bureaucratic monolith that is the EU into our daily lives.....idiotic legislation, forcing metrication on our weights and measures....buying fuel in ltrs not gallons...remember that one....traders brought to court for refusing to convert to metric (to name a few that immediately spring to mind)....people really didn't like it.  So there has been an underlying dislike in many households of the growth, expansion, intrusion and domination of our daily lives relative to that which we joined in the first place.....the EEC.  Possibly the unacceptable change of the social fabric in some areas brought about by the sheer weight of numbers of 'foreign'...(read EU citizens) precipitated the tip over into the 'out' mindset.

 

But, most of the reason for these dislikes, as illustrated above, is mere resistance to change. It should be borne in mind that every regulation emanating from the EU was contributed to, and voted on by, UK MEPs and those UK government ministers who make up part of the EU Council. This "bureaucratic monolith" is a myth. It does not reflect the structure of the EU. The bureaucrats do not run the EU, any more than Germany does: the 28 nation states, acting in concert, do. Free movement of people was one of the founding principles of the EEC, and was carried over into the EU. How many EEC/EU citizens come to work and live in the UK was always within the control of UK governments, but they failed to exercise those controls. That is a fault, but it is not the fault of the EU, and it is perverse to cite that as a reason for leaving.

 

So please lets not keep on with the tiring accusation that those who voted 'out' didn't know what they were voting for because conversely those who voted 'in', had they won, really had and indeed have no idea of how or what the EU is going to morph into in the future.

Hence my confusion. Contrast the above, with the comment that "As for every citizens right to have their say in the type of exit that is negotiated!!!! At a guess I would say almost 99.99999% of 'Joe Public' has no idea of the intricacies, legal standing, legislation, diplomacy etc etc that will form the basis and progression of the negotiations." How is that people understanding what they were voting for?

 

It is these continuing contradictions that persuade those of who were comfortable being a part of the EU, and saw (and see) no problem with continuing our membership, that the referendum was a mistake of historic proportions, decided on the basis of emotion and misunderstanding, and it is why, when invited to shut up because we lost, we say we will not, because we think that the country will be done great damage by leaving, in all those areas that those 99.99999% of the uninformed did not understand.

 

A vote does not define democracy, a majority has no monopoly on being right, and no democrat should ever shut up when they believe a majority has got things badly wrong.

 

 

What he said. (lol)

 

The most searched for Phrase on google in the UK directly AFTER the referendum. "What is the EU?" :'(

[Bulletguy]

 

This matter could still be up for debate too. There is one hell of a lot of ex-pat Brits worried about being kicked out of their favourite long term sunspot......Spain. Not to mention those of us who still want some form of affiliation with Europe.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36703037

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-freedom-of-movement-passport-how-to-keep-parliament-live-move-abroad-a7405196.html

 

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the_fight_for_opt_in_eu_citizenship_is_on_1_4808309

 

meanwhile.....a warning from a Professor of European Law; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-iceberg-theresa-may-plan-eu-leave-european-law-professor-kenneth-armstrong-cambridge-a7567111.html

[Muswell]

RogerC - 2017-02-04 2:36 PM

regarding the insidious creep of the bureaucratic monolith that is the EU into our daily lives.....idiotic legislation, forcing metrication on our weights and measures..

 

The metrication process started in 1965 after pressure from the Federation of British Industry.... before the EU had anything to do with it.

[Guest pelmetman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4202064/Pay-Brexit-bills-UK-8bn-left.html

 

B-) ...............

 

 

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2017-02-08 9:56 AM

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4202064/Pay-Brexit-bills-UK-8bn-left.html

 

B-) ...............

 

 

 

That MUST be true.

 

It's written by experts.

 

;-)

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-02-08 9:56 AM

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4202064/Pay-Brexit-bills-UK-8bn-left.html

 

B-) ...............

 

 

Thanks for the article Dave. The headline emphasises the potential upside in terms of a boost to public finances of £8billion a year but the full article indicates that whether we will derive any benefit in terms of increased spending on public services or a reduction of the deficit is dependent upon a number of unknowns. Whether the government will be able, even if willing to spend all or part of that £8billion on public services is uncertain. The money might be needed to plug other holes in public finances due to a potential negative impact on the economy of no longer being a member. I want us to succeed but I think we’re a long way from finding out what our public finances will look like post Brexit.

 

Veronica

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2017-02-08 10:47 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-08 9:56 AM

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4202064/Pay-Brexit-bills-UK-8bn-left.html

 

B-) ...............

 

 

 

That MUST be true.

 

It's written by experts.

 

;-)

 

You don't need to be an expert to know if your no longer paying 55 million a day to the EU, then it follows that your 55 million quid better of B-) ..........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-02-08 11:06 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-08 9:56 AM

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4202064/Pay-Brexit-bills-UK-8bn-left.html

 

B-) ...............

 

 

Thanks for the article Dave. The headline emphasises the potential upside in terms of a boost to public finances of £8billion a year but the full article indicates that whether we will derive any benefit in terms of increased spending on public services or a reduction of the deficit is dependent upon a number of unknowns. Whether the government will be able, even if willing to spend all or part of that £8billion on public services is uncertain. The money might be needed to plug other holes in public finances due to a potential negative impact on the economy of no longer being a member. I want us to succeed but I think we’re a long way from finding out what our public finances will look like post Brexit.

 

Veronica

 

The 8 billion is taking into account that we carry on funding those businesses quango's etc that currently receive our money back from the EU *-) .......Whether they spend it on services or the deficit is neither here nor there as its 8 billion we didn't have before B-) ........