Have you noticed, not ONE person has proffered an alternative to the Brexit formula agreed by Mother Theresa?
Mr Corbyn has been absent in his comments except for in the Commons and his trip to Germany. Surely this is the time to be bellowing if you are opposition? Vince Cable where are you? Dave Davies, what would your action be?
Turkeys voting for Christmas? Mother Theresa has probably told her colleagues that if you vote against and cause a rumpus, the result could be a general election and if they lost (gawd 'elp us) they all would be out of a job!
Not one of them in government previously called for a referendum! Strange how they are all calling for one now under various names (people’s vote etc.).
This proposal from Mother Theresa is not open ended, it is a transition to which we will have a finite deal in 2 years time or so. THEN we will know where we are at…IN or OUT or even OUT OUT as we say.
If you want to listen to some entertainment: Eddie Mair (Ex BBC) is on LBC (DAB radio) from 4-6pm each day. Great entertainment on Brexit issues, swiftly followed by Nigel Farage 6-7pm Monday to Thursday. He don’t dodge ANY issues or questions put to him.
gazzer:
This proposal from Mother Theresa is not open ended, it is a transition to which we will have a finite deal in 2 years time or so. THEN we will know where we are at…IN or OUT or even OUT OUT as we say.
We know exactly where we are.
It’s actually a proposal which ties us to EU laws and juristiction including free movement rules and immigration policy,maintains access to UK fishing territorial waters,continues with payments to Brussels,limits our ability to make our own trade deals,removes our MEP representation within the EU parliament,and is binding on future administrations.IE Remain + and the deal which remainer May and her fake puppet Brexit ‘ministry’ and ‘ministers’ intended from the start.
Gazzer political personal in all party’s are in it for there own gain and they all lie sometimes for financial gain and I do suspect the conservatives are frightened of a general election and to what the result would be, now Mrs May has tried hard to broker a deal and there are some good points in her proposed terms at present but it is not the Brexit that was voted for and we will still be tied to the EU if this goes ahead. This would be a blatant act of treachery to the ones in this country who voted to leave with no strings attached, its obvious to me that Barnier and his cohorts want us to stay and that is why they are so belligerent in there approach towards us, if this deal as it stands goes ahead they will still be making our laws and regulating us with no recourse by any UK government who ever is in power.
At the end of the day most people in this land of there’s, I say that because ( as it stands we are not ruling these shores or our destiny ) have had enough and just want it sorted, Instead we are just floundering one day to the next not really knowing WTF will happen next, there is uncertainty within the business world here and that is not good for our economy and this needs sorting PDQ so they all know where they are going and can progress, the longer this is drawn out the more harm it will do.
When we know if enough letters have been sent calling for Mrs Mays resignation, ( you cant be sure of that as the count may be rigged ) who will take over as i dont think anyone would like to step into No10 just now, maybee Gove just hung on in there so as not to lose his claim for the top job and as in football if you play for England you want to be captain.
Summing up i am dissolutioned about the whole process and it is getting boring now, we need to make our minds up what to do and get on with it touts sweet, Buzzer.
Today I have done something that I have never done before in my life. That is written (by Email) to my MP, Sir David Crausby, Labour, with my opinion about where we are with this shambles. The Email has been acknowledged as received.
I urge all of you with views about Brexit, whatever they are, to write to your MPs so that they can gauge the views of we ordinary people. If you are represented by a Tory MP and you think that the Prime Minister should be replaced, then write and tell him or her that.
This is an exact transcript of the Email I sent this morning.
Dear Sir David
I am writing to express my opinion about the proposed Brexit agreement that will shortly be presented to Parliament for approval.
I firmly believe that this agreement is totally unacceptable to myself and that it is a travesty of what the 52% of the population that voted “Leave” in June 2016 wanted. Therefore I would ask you to vote against this proposal.
Whilst the resilience of the Prime Minister, in the face of continued difficulties, is to be admired, her intransigence and stubbornness in apparently refusing to listen to advice from her colleagues is very disconcerting.
My own political views are probably not as yours; in the majority of elections held after 1969, when I became eligible to vote, I have mostly voted Conservative, and I would describe myself as a “compassionate Tory”.
As for the Referendum, personally I was undecided how to vote until a couple of days beforehand. I deliberated long and hard, my heart said leave, and my head said remain. Mainly because I realised just how much we had become integrated into the EU and how difficult it would be to leave. In the end my heart won, and I did vote to leave the EU.I might add that nothing that has happened since then, even with the shambolic situation in which the UK now finds itself, has made me change my mind. If anything, the actions of the EU and the complete disrespect shown by their unelected officials to this Kingdom has made me convinced that we must leave. Leaving without any deal would be far preferable than being a subservient nation to the EU, possibly for perpetuity, that the proposed Brexit agreement would result in.
A “no deal” departure would cause problems obviously, but equally so for the EU. Our negotiators do not seem to have understood the word “negotiation”; capitulation to the demands of the EU seems to have been their policy.
My final comment is that I am opposed to a second referendum. We had the vote in 2016, another vote would do nothing to unite the country whatever the result, which personally I believe would be a repeat of 2016.
Yours sincerely
An inspiring piece, young man - so much so that I’ve just sent a similar message to my own MP, Dan Jarvis MBE. Although he campaigned to remain, I pointed out that he was elected by a clear majority to represent his constituents, who voted overwhelmingly to leave. I also said that acceptance could tie us to the EU for an indeterminate period, continuing the present uncertainty and denying us the opportunity of developing new trade deals with the wider world. Let’s see if I get a reply…
gingerfold:
Today I have done something that I have never done before in my life. That is written (by Email) to my MP, Sir David Crausby, Labour, with my opinion about where we are with this shambles. The Email has been acknowledged as received.
I urge all of you with views about Brexit, whatever they are, to write to your MPs so that they can gauge the views of we ordinary people. If you are represented by a Tory MP and you think that the Prime Minister should be replaced, then write and tell him or her that.
This is an exact transcript of the Email I sent this morning.
Dear Sir David
I am writing to express my opinion about the proposed Brexit agreement that will shortly be presented to Parliament for approval.
I firmly believe that this agreement is totally unacceptable to myself and that it is a travesty of what the 52% of the population that voted “Leave” in June 2016 wanted. Therefore I would ask you to vote against this proposal.
Whilst the resilience of the Prime Minister, in the face of continued difficulties, is to be admired, her intransigence and stubbornness in apparently refusing to listen to advice from her colleagues is very disconcerting.
My own political views are probably not as yours; in the majority of elections held after 1969, when I became eligible to vote, I have mostly voted Conservative, and I would describe myself as a “compassionate Tory”.
As for the Referendum, personally I was undecided how to vote until a couple of days beforehand. I deliberated long and hard, my heart said leave, and my head said remain. Mainly because I realised just how much we had become integrated into the EU and how difficult it would be to leave. In the end my heart won, and I did vote to leave the EU.I might add that nothing that has happened since then, even with the shambolic situation in which the UK now finds itself, has made me change my mind. If anything, the actions of the EU and the complete disrespect shown by their unelected officials to this Kingdom has made me convinced that we must leave. Leaving without any deal would be far preferable than being a subservient nation to the EU, possibly for perpetuity, that the proposed Brexit agreement would result in.
A “no deal” departure would cause problems obviously, but equally so for the EU. Our negotiators do not seem to have understood the word “negotiation”; capitulation to the demands of the EU seems to have been their policy.
My final comment is that I am opposed to a second referendum. We had the vote in 2016, another vote would do nothing to unite the country whatever the result, which personally I believe would be a repeat of 2016.
Yours sincerely
Ironically it’s all long gone past the point where we can trust the country’s hopeless MP’s to act in the national interest.Or have any faith in an electoral system that provides 1 seat for almost 4 million votes.
While it’s clear that the issue of handing over the country to the EU was never one of which could/should be settled by voting.When the correct approach was that the Head of State should have used her ultimate authority over such matters and shown the leadership needed to kick out this malignant corrosive treasonous agenda from the start let alone allowing it to reach this level of subversion.IE and open letter and question addressed to the relevant position of authority as to why would the Head of State wish to stand back while the state is effectively abolished in favour of being handed over on a plate as a subservient province of the EU Federation.
fodenway:
An inspiring piece, young man - so much so that I’ve just sent a similar message to my own MP, Dan Jarvis MBE. Although he campaigned to remain, I pointed out that he was elected by a clear majority to represent his constituents, who voted overwhelmingly to leave. I also said that acceptance could tie us to the EU for an indeterminate period, continuing the present uncertainty and denying us the opportunity of developing new trade deals with the wider world. Let’s see if I get a reply…
Ironically the point of settling the matter by supposed referendum was actually to bypass the constituency MP and vote process.Which by definition would have meant Remain MP’s having to implement a Leave vote or vice versa if Remain had won.On that note going by the logic of making it a constituency vote issue Dominic Raab would have been expected to go along with his overwhelmingly Remain constituency vote.
The fact that neither the referendum was drawn up to be a binding document on the government so a non referendum and that he was clearly supposedly standing for so called ‘Hard Brexit’ based on a Remain constituency mandate,followed by the pathetic resignation statement including his ongoing loyalty for May and tacit support of her non Brexit Remain + plan,just adds more weight to the conspiracy theory that the whole thing was just a fake referendum and fake Brexit process to derail UKIP obviously also with the full backing ( if not on the orders of ? ) HM.Just like Heath’s original sell out of the country followed by all the other subsequent sell out treaty signings.
It’s not only a club which tells us where to fish it also tells us not to fish in our own fishing grounds so as to leave more fish in them for other members of the club to take.We also pay in 10’s of billions in net ‘contributions’ for the privilege of paying more than 100 billion more than they pay us us to import stuff from them that we could make for ourselves.We didn’t ever get a debate or a binding vote on the government on whether to join or leave only state funded and orchestrated propaganda campaign telling us that we couldn’t survive without being a member state based on the lie that it didn’t mean giving up sovereignty.Although no one ever said that the 1975 referendum was only an opinion poll when remain won it.
Buzzer - in response to your reply to my last post - regarding you having paid good money for your permits back in the 70’s.
The trouble here is that you are quoting / looking at a ‘snapshot’ - a particular event / moment in time when you need to look at the whole picture - I’ll explain;
Yes, I’m well aware how you and everyone else around at the time went about acquiring permits - my Dad did the very same thing - in fact he bought his first French & German permits from a chap down your neck of the woods in Castle Carey.
But look at it this way - 2 points
-Whilst you are miffed at the permits becoming null & void - no doubt the previous generation to you, those running in the 50’s & 60’s on A,B & C licences would have been equally miffed at the ‘new’ ‘O’ licensing system, which allowed ‘every Tom, ■■■■ & Harry’ - and you, to get an O licence. But you wouldn’t have minded that rule change, as you did alright out of that one.
And, you did nothing wrong - you just took advantage of the rules & regulations of the day - nothing wrong in that.
-Now, moving forward to the 90’s - you took advantage of another rule change. At the same time as the permits became null & void, the Travellers Relief act allowed you, me & everyone else to run on the cheapest fuel we could find, be it from Spain, Luxembourg or wherever. We all did it, and we saved a lot of money.
Myself, having been an Owner Driver, and having had a business manufacturing large ally fuel tanks, I have a pretty good idea how much that piece of legislation was worth, and how much you might have saved.
You were running 30 odd trucks in the 90’s - you would have saved $ thousands (sorry, no 'Pound sign on my keyboard) each week - week in, week out.
Now, don’t get me wrong - I’m not suggesting that you are rolling in cash because I’m not - we’re well aware that if you, me and all the others had not been running on the cheapest fuel around, we would have been long gone.
But you’re not long gone - you’ve been on the swings, round the round-a-bouts and you’ve stood the test of time, because you have changed and adapted as necessary - and credit to you for doing so.
Like I said - just quoting a specific moment in time doesn’t tell the whole story.
And, talking of considering the whole story - here’s something;
WW1 & WW2 cost Britain about 40% of GDP per annum.
Currently, British GDP is around 3 Trillion pounds.
So, in today’s money, taking part in WW2 would cost around 1.2 Trillion pa.
EU membership, costs Britain around 10 Billion pounds pa.
As we all should know, the inception of the EU was to prevent future wars in Europe - something it has been very successful at. Now, my maths isn’t very good, but it would seam that being a member of the EU for 100 years would cost roughly a similar amount to what WW2 cost each of its 6 years.
In other words, Britain could be an EU member for 600 years, and that would ‘cost’ the same amount as WW2.
Sounds cheap to me.
But WW1 also cost 17 million lives, WW2 cost an estimated 50 - 80 million lives.
Makes the monetary cost, and the colour / wording on the front of your passport seam a bit trivial really.
kmills:
And, talking of considering the whole story - here’s something;
WW1 & WW2 cost Britain about 40% of GDP per annum.
Currently, British GDP is around 3 Trillion pounds.
So, in today’s money, taking part in WW2 would cost around 1.2 Trillion pa.
EU membership, costs Britain around 10 Billion pounds pa.
As we all should know, the inception of the EU was to prevent future wars in Europe - something it has been very successful at. Now, my maths isn’t very good, but it would seam that being a member of the EU for 100 years would cost roughly a similar amount to what WW2 cost each of its 6 years.
In other words, Britain could be an EU member for 600 years, and that would ‘cost’ the same amount as WW2.
Sounds cheap to me.
But WW1 also cost 17 million lives, WW2 cost an estimated 50 - 80 million lives.
Makes the monetary cost, and the colour / wording on the front of your passport seam a bit trivial really.
By the same logic we could obviously have ‘prevented’ WW2 by just saying to Germany we want to be a member of the 3rd Reich/Axis.
As for Federations supposedly mean peace do you really think that Germany would have gone to war if it was still made up of its pre Federation seperate Nation states all with the sovereign right of their people and governments to say to the Kaiser or Hitler no we ain’t interested.While the EU is calling for a Federal army with obvious designs of then going up against Russia.All very peaceful.While it obviously took the US federation almost 100 years before it inevitably descended into a war of Federal aggression and Secession then laughably called Lincoln’s resulting victory and imposition by force a ‘Union’ in laughable violation of the intentions of the US Confederation’s founders.Just like the Yugoslav Federal government and its JNA storm troopers tried to do more recently but this time failed.On that note the EU hasn’t been around long enough in close enough form for Secessionist v Federalist tensions to reach boiling point ( yet ).While you do know how WW1 and 2 started.War of Federal aggression v Secession and two Federations,Germany and Soviet Union,ignoring,invading and destroying the self determination and sovereign right of Poland to exist as a Nation State and like all deluded Federalists you think the best way of avoiding that is to turn the whole of Europe into another version of the dictatorial Austro Hungarian Empire,Third Reich,or Soviet Union or Yugoslav Federation.What could possibly go wrong.
kmills:
And, talking of considering the whole story - here’s something;
WW1 & WW2 cost Britain about 40% of GDP per annum.
Currently, British GDP is around 3 Trillion pounds.
So, in today’s money, taking part in WW2 would cost around 1.2 Trillion pa.
EU membership, costs Britain around 10 Billion pounds pa.
As we all should know, the inception of the EU was to prevent future wars in Europe - something it has been very successful at. Now, my maths isn’t very good, but it would seam that being a member of the EU for 100 years would cost roughly a similar amount to what WW2 cost each of its 6 years.
In other words, Britain could be an EU member for 600 years, and that would ‘cost’ the same amount as WW2.
Sounds cheap to me.
But WW1 also cost 17 million lives, WW2 cost an estimated 50 - 80 million lives.
Makes the monetary cost, and the colour / wording on the front of your passport seam a bit trivial really.
Think on if we had not defended our shores in the two wars we would have been under German control just as we seem to be today and back then our countrymen were made of completely different stuff than today, " Lest we forget " the losses were tragic and we would not see a war like that again in any case due to the advancement of warfare equipment of nowadays, just putting another point forward, Buzzer.
^^^
An interesting interview with Nigel Farage on Remembrance Day which is rather more on the theme above than the title would suggest. What is particularly noticeable is his reference to the young searching for a sense of identity and belonging, which so sadly appears to be lacking among those who consider themselves to be ‘European’ first and very much less ‘British’. There has been much talk about our children’s future being affected by Brexit, with a lot of noise being made by those who were children just a few years ago, but without much account being taken of those who are actually children now who it seems are finding our past more relevaant than those a little older.
cav551:
^^^
An interesting interview with Nigel Farage on Remembrance Day which is rather more on the theme above than the title would suggest. What is particularly noticeable is his reference to the young searching for a sense of identity and belonging, which so sadly appears to be lacking among those who consider themselves to be ‘European’ first and very much less ‘British’. There has been much talk about our children’s future being affected by Brexit, with a lot of noise being made by those who were children just a few years ago, but without much account being taken of those who are actually children now who it seems are finding our past more relevaant than those a little older.
Edit scroll back to the start. For the normal electronic **** reasons the computer insists on starting the clip in the middle.
Farage lost credibility in firstly not even raising the question what was the point of a non binding referendum then telling the Leave vote to trust May to the point where many UKIP supporters took it at face value and deserted UKIP to support her.His simplistic attempt to rewrite history ,by blaming WW1 on the Germans,as opposed to idiotic French aggression towards Germany,instead of France ( and us ) keeping out of the argument between Germany and Russia, seeming to also be in line with that lack of judgement.Bearing in mind that kicking off a massive European War,over the localised issue of Serb Secession from Austro/Hungary,made no more sense at the time than same in the case of any of the major powers rushing to the aid of the Irish v UK would have done.In which case you can bet that UK would have acted exactly as Austria/Germany did.
As for the younger generations it’s obvious that many of them really do identify strongly with the EU and its flag.While future generations will most definitely be affected in the long term if,more like when,the chickens come home to roost and those with any sense of Brit National belonging and identity find themselves facing the nightmare of the full force of an all powerful Federal monster in action,including from within,against them as so many have done before through history.
On that note it seems clear that most of the younger interest in remembrance is actually just more establishment indoctrination based on the same worn out lie of look what Nationalism did we must have a Federal Europe to avoid this in future.As opposed to the reality of this is what happens when the Nation State has to be defended from the aggressive imposition of the Federation in whatever form.The problem then being that would instantly invalidate the US constitution and its violent imposition over the Secessionist states in 1865.Which is the real reason why we are lumbered with a Federal Europe rather than the obvious advanced solution of a Confederal Europe which maintains the individual sovereignty of its Nation States.
As for Farage,now obviously wanting to go back to bs failed so called left v right politics,what I’ve said is a a Nationalist argument not a Socialist one.While don’t remember his idol Thatcher raising any of the concerns over the loss of National sovereignty when she supported Heath in the yes campaign of 1975.
You think you did a good deal there Gazda401?
What about this one?
I’m gonna save £350 every week.
I had a market stall that cost me £350 a week. I’m giving it up.
So I’ll be £350 better off every week.
Well the rent should have been £350 but my Aunt Maggie argued them down, so I was actually only paying £270, but it’s still a saving of 350 ain’t it.
I won’t be able to sell my stuff on my local market any more, so I’ll have to sell it further afield I s’pose. I’m sure there’s people gasping for my insurance policies. And if I sell it elsewhere I’ll probably have to get the new customers to pay extra for it. Guess I won’t sell as much if it’s dearer, and delivery takes longer, but I’ve saved £350. And I won’t get mates rates on purchases from my old buddies down the market, I’ll be paying extra but I’ve saved £350.
So maybe selling less, to possible new customers, further away; paying more for the stuff I need, dont really matter, because I’m saving £350.
Bargain!
Franglais:
You think you did a good deal there Gazda401?
What about this one?
I’m gonna save £350 every week.
I had a market stall that cost me £350 a week. I’m giving it up.
So I’ll be £350 better off every week.
Well the rent should have been £350 but my Aunt Maggie argued them down, so I was actually only paying £270, but it’s still a saving of 350 ain’t it.
I won’t be able to sell my stuff on my local market any more, so I’ll have to sell it further afield I s’pose. I’m sure there’s people gasping for my insurance policies. And if I sell it elsewhere I’ll probably have to get the new customers to pay extra for it. Guess I won’t sell as much if it’s dearer, and delivery takes longer, but I’ve saved £350. And I won’t get mates rates on purchases from my old buddies down the market, I’ll be paying extra but I’ve saved £350.
So maybe selling less, to possible new customers, further away; paying more for the stuff I need, dont really matter, because I’m saving £350.
Bargain!
It seems that many in the remain camp have a very doom-laden, defeatist attitude to the opportunities offered by leaving the EU. They can only see bad things. Of course there are risks, and some big ones at that, but we’ll never fulfil any of those opportunities without taking that leap forward. Where would we have been if the visionaries and risk-takers of the Industrial Age and the Victorian entrepreneurs who built vast business empires had the same attitude - “Why bother building a canal system when we already know that we can move our goods on a horse and cart?” “Could be risky building a railway, passengers might burst into flames at more than running pace” and so on. We need ambitious, forward-thinking people now, not those content to sit back and be dictated to by the unelected leaders of a club which has changed its rules out of all recognition since we joined.
Franglais:
You think you did a good deal there Gazda401?
What about this one?
I’m gonna save £350 every week.
I had a market stall that cost me £350 a week. I’m giving it up.
So I’ll be £350 better off every week.
Well the rent should have been £350 but my Aunt Maggie argued them down, so I was actually only paying £270, but it’s still a saving of 350 ain’t it.
I won’t be able to sell my stuff on my local market any more, so I’ll have to sell it further afield I s’pose. I’m sure there’s people gasping for my insurance policies. And if I sell it elsewhere I’ll probably have to get the new customers to pay extra for it. Guess I won’t sell as much if it’s dearer, and delivery takes longer, but I’ve saved £350. And I won’t get mates rates on purchases from my old buddies down the market, I’ll be paying extra but I’ve saved £350.
So maybe selling less, to possible new customers, further away; paying more for the stuff I need, dont really matter, because I’m saving £350.
Bargain!
Let’s get this right I’m paying 270 quid rent for a foreign market stall having had to close down the local market stall where I paid no rent or shipping costs,because the foreign competition has taken all of my local customers.Then to add insult to injury I’ve gained far less customers in the foreign market than I’ve lost at home in my local market.Then my foreign competitors tell me that I also now have to be ruled by their government who I don’t get a vote over and which no surprise looks after the interests of my foreign competitors better than it does me.
