Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?

  • Total voters
    1,081












beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,303
hope that parliament doesn't go into recess for the next 4 weeks, if the courts do decide the prorogation must been reversed.
 




Mtoto

Mtoto

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2003
1,841
Westdene Seagull said:
I think the phrase "have personally caused you anxiety, financial, physical, emotional harm" is slightly dramatic. For me, it's the move to a super state ( and that is the aim ) that is the issue. I've mentioned it before - here in the UK we've moved democratic accountability closer to the people - devolved government ( NI excepted at the moment ) and mayors in many places. Even councils are being bestowed extra powers gradually. An EU super state takes that in completely an opposite direction. I believe power should be with the people and for the people ( and I'm right wing …. ish …. before you start accusing me of being a communist ). I accept our system isn't perfect - for starters the House of Lords but the EU adds another layer. A layer the person in the street has barely any say in - say I don't agree with the actions of the Council of Europe for example, how do I remove any member from it ? Answer, I can't. The published aim of the EU is ever greater political and fiscal union - fine if that's what they want to do but I don't think that is in the best interests of the UK nor indeed the voters of the UK.




Wrong as you often are. This thread is nearly 2500 pages long. I now challenge you to provide one single post in all those pages that even implies I voted leave because of immigration ? You won't be able to because I have NEVER said immigration was my reason for voting leave ….. not once.
Click to expand...

Ever closer union, eh? A phrase which dates back to the Treaty of Rome - drawn up by by people with vivid memories of the most brutal war in European history - and which refers, at all times, to "ever closer union of the peoples of Europe", *not* their governments. It's a turn of phrase, a fuzzy aspiration in dark times that a more harmonious future might lie ahead for a continent where nation states had been waging war on each other on a regular basis for more than 1,000 years.

And yet for a hardcore of anti-EU fanatics, it's been seen as unassailable evidence of a dark plot to create a "superstate" ever since. Never mind the veto, which every country has on such a huge change to the set-up *precisely* to address such concerns. It's still the starting point for your argument: the EU is definitely becoming a Superstate, therefore we must leave. I guess there's some sort of chance that you're right, but 62 years is a long time to be plotting. If that were truly the inevitable direction of travel, don't you think we might have got there by now?

And suppose you're not correct, and the Superstate only exists between your ears? In that case, "that's fine if that's what they want to do" is meaningless, because it's not what they want to do. And the UK is therefore about to make the biggest, most historic mistake in its history. How is that in anyone's "interests"?
 








Stato

Stato

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2011
6,583
BensGrandad said:
According to the news on Smooth Radio, 3 High Court Judges in England have already ruled that it is not a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the courts. You wouldnt expect judges in Scotland to rule any other way in reality
Click to expand...

Presumably followed by: "Well that's Brexit settled then... Here's Randy VanWarmer with 'Just When I Needed You Most."
 


















Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
65,453
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
Chicken Run said:
I’m assuming if you’re suggesting the 1975 referendum counts as number 1, that the then EEC is very much the same as the EU now?
Click to expand...

Each treaty was voted on in turn as it came along by the government of the day.
The aim, even in the 70s was closer union. I understood that at the time, from what Winston Churchill had said, and from Edward Heath.

As I pointed out earlier, if it is the political union that leavers are so opposed to, then why didn't the government just say, we are leaving the EU, but staying in EFTA, which I suspect would have been voted on, done and dusted now. We were in EFTA before we even joined the EEC.
 


Westdene Seagull

Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,005
The arse end of Hangleton
Mtoto said:
Ever closer union, eh? A phrase which dates back to the Treaty of Rome - drawn up by by people with vivid memories of the most brutal war in European history - and which refers, at all times, to "ever closer union of the peoples of Europe", *not* their governments. It's a turn of phrase, a fuzzy aspiration in dark times that a more harmonious future might lie ahead for a continent where nation states had been waging war on each other on a regular basis for more than 1,000 years.

And yet for a hardcore of anti-EU fanatics, it's been seen as unassailable evidence of a dark plot to create a "superstate" ever since. Never mind the veto, which every country has on such a huge change to the set-up *precisely* to address such concerns. It's still the starting point for your argument: the EU is definitely becoming a Superstate, therefore we must leave. I guess there's some sort of chance that you're right, but 62 years is a long time to be plotting. If that were truly the inevitable direction of travel, don't you think we might have got there by now?

And suppose you're not correct, and the Superstate only exists between your ears? In that case, "that's fine if that's what they want to do" is meaningless, because it's not what they want to do. And the UK is therefore about to make the biggest, most historic mistake in its history. How is that in anyone's "interests"?
Click to expand...

I'd suggest you take in to account the direction of travel since 1975. It hardly suggests the aim isn't an EU super state. Throw in the recent murmurings from Macron and Merkal about the need for an EU army and you get even closer to the EU being a state rather than the trading union that we joined. Equally, yes, members have vetos but only in SOME areas. Some members will move towards that ever greater union - France and Germany for example. Others won't - meaning there will be different levels of membership. Something pointed out by Paddy Ashdown many years ago. What is the point of the UK being a 'second class' member ? We might as well leave and let them get on with their union.
 






Westdene Seagull

Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,005
The arse end of Hangleton
Thunder Bolt said:
The legal activists chose Scotland because the English courts were in summer recess at the time.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that ? Gina Miller and John Major brought their case almost in parallel.
 


ManOfSussex

ManOfSussex

We wunt be druv
Apr 11, 2016
14,745
Rape of Hastings, Sussex
Going well then.

[tweet]1171731208591597568[/tweet]

[tweet]1171732144164618240[/tweet]
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here