Motoring0 min ago
She Talks The Talk, Will She Wal The Walk?
51 Answers
A total change from Dave and Gideon.
If she sees this through she, and all of us, should be a winner.
Good luck Theresa.
http://
If she sees this through she, and all of us, should be a winner.
Good luck Theresa.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"...nor is it a rejection of democracy, to still campaign in favour of remaining in the EU, or at least in favour of leaving it in an orderly fashion..."
Of course not, Jim. But at present the decision to leave must be enacted. So leave we should. The manner of leaving should be controlled (though swifter than some seem to imagine it will take). We're all adults so no chucking toys from the pram. The UK signed up to the EU so it should at least respect its procedure for leaving. But the end result should be in no doubt: no "half in half out"; no "Norwegian" models; no subject to any of the EU's rules; no acquiesence to any of its conditions for free trade. The country voted to leave. It's unfortunate that the 48% who voted to remain will not see their wishes fulfilled. Life's a bit tough sometimes. But leave we must. If agreeents can be reached after we have left which are mutually beneficial to the UK and the other 27 nations, all the better. But if not that's that. That's what I voted for. I knew the "worst case scenario" that was constantly thrust under my nose, took a calculated risk that it was somewhat adrift from what was likely to happen, but was nonetheless prepared for the absolute worst. I want absolutely no compromise which would see us in any way under the influence or control of the EU or any of its institutions or subject to any of its rules, regulations or laws. Trading agreements are different because they are bilateral and should be negotiated and framed to protect the interests of both sides. If the remaining 27 are happy to surrender their right to negotiate such deals in their individual best interests that's their business. But I want no influence upon the UK by the EU over anything else.
Of course not, Jim. But at present the decision to leave must be enacted. So leave we should. The manner of leaving should be controlled (though swifter than some seem to imagine it will take). We're all adults so no chucking toys from the pram. The UK signed up to the EU so it should at least respect its procedure for leaving. But the end result should be in no doubt: no "half in half out"; no "Norwegian" models; no subject to any of the EU's rules; no acquiesence to any of its conditions for free trade. The country voted to leave. It's unfortunate that the 48% who voted to remain will not see their wishes fulfilled. Life's a bit tough sometimes. But leave we must. If agreeents can be reached after we have left which are mutually beneficial to the UK and the other 27 nations, all the better. But if not that's that. That's what I voted for. I knew the "worst case scenario" that was constantly thrust under my nose, took a calculated risk that it was somewhat adrift from what was likely to happen, but was nonetheless prepared for the absolute worst. I want absolutely no compromise which would see us in any way under the influence or control of the EU or any of its institutions or subject to any of its rules, regulations or laws. Trading agreements are different because they are bilateral and should be negotiated and framed to protect the interests of both sides. If the remaining 27 are happy to surrender their right to negotiate such deals in their individual best interests that's their business. But I want no influence upon the UK by the EU over anything else.
“I might well point out that leaving the EU in the hope of a better world for all, but mainly us, was idealistic nonsense.”
It’s nothing to do with idealism, Jim, but simple realism. On the contrary, the idea of the EU (in its ultimate form of a Federal Europe) is the truest manifestation of idealistic nonsense. No other nation in the world (outside the EU, that is) would succumb to the demands of the EU. No nation would sacrifice its right to determine who does and does not settle within its borders; no nation would sacrifice its legislature to a foreign court as the ultimate arbiter; no nation would acquiesce to laws made by a foreign power; no nation would forfeit the right to strike trade agreements with other countries but instead be subject to those settled on their behalf when their best interests may not be foremost. But these, among many other travesties enacted on behalf of the electorate, are what successive UK governments have facilitated to maintain our membership of the EU.
Last winter I met some Canadian people and we got chatting about our forthcoming referendum. They could not understand why we should want to quit the EU. Then I explained to them what membership really means and how they would feel had such conditions been foisted upon Canada (roughly on the lines of my remarks above). They were absolutely astonished and wondered how any UK government could ever have agreed to such conditions. They had no idea what membership really meant, believing the EU to be just a cosy “free trade” area.
As I said earlier, in not too many years’ time, people in the UK will look back in absolute amazement and wonder how on earth successive UK governments could have allowed such a scandalous diminution of sovereignty to develop.
It’s nothing to do with idealism, Jim, but simple realism. On the contrary, the idea of the EU (in its ultimate form of a Federal Europe) is the truest manifestation of idealistic nonsense. No other nation in the world (outside the EU, that is) would succumb to the demands of the EU. No nation would sacrifice its right to determine who does and does not settle within its borders; no nation would sacrifice its legislature to a foreign court as the ultimate arbiter; no nation would acquiesce to laws made by a foreign power; no nation would forfeit the right to strike trade agreements with other countries but instead be subject to those settled on their behalf when their best interests may not be foremost. But these, among many other travesties enacted on behalf of the electorate, are what successive UK governments have facilitated to maintain our membership of the EU.
Last winter I met some Canadian people and we got chatting about our forthcoming referendum. They could not understand why we should want to quit the EU. Then I explained to them what membership really means and how they would feel had such conditions been foisted upon Canada (roughly on the lines of my remarks above). They were absolutely astonished and wondered how any UK government could ever have agreed to such conditions. They had no idea what membership really meant, believing the EU to be just a cosy “free trade” area.
As I said earlier, in not too many years’ time, people in the UK will look back in absolute amazement and wonder how on earth successive UK governments could have allowed such a scandalous diminution of sovereignty to develop.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Music12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.