Tweet
I won't be leaving unless hugs become compulsory :
-
-
Originally posted by caz View PostI wish you well, Steve, wherever you decide to live. My brother, a lifelong Londoner, is thinking he may up sticks and move to Thailand.
Me, I wouldn't mind France, seeing the wonderful Tour de France and all that beautiful scenery. But when that's over I'll no doubt fall back in love with Devon, where I am now. One of the regulars at our local boozer was very vocal about his 'leave' vote, and is now off to Spain for two weeks - presumably to make the most of the English pubs and fish and chip shops there before all the prices go up!
Love,
Caz
X
Caz
thanks
well my other half is from the Caribbean so back there think.
And yes got pubs there too.
I agree with much of what you have posted, the problem I have had is over the last 2 weeks, the number of people both interviewed on tv and who I have personally spoken to who have no idea of the possible outcome of leaving. a typical comment i have heard is "it can't be any worse can it?"
Its that response which has made my mind up, if people had voted for reasons they could explain I would have no problem.
Of course I should not be surprised with comments like that, over the last 40 years we have seen an immense effort in this country to make sure that most people are uneducated on politics and economics, that has been the policy of all political parties.
The outcome of that is that many people have no idea of how things work.
For instances I had someone tell me before the 2010 election that all those who didn't voted had their votes automatically added to that of the Labour party, they insisted this was common knowledge. (I assume because Labour at the time were the outgoing Government.).
What really worries me is the leave politicians seem to have no idea of what to do .
Robert,
you obviously do have reasoned arguments, and I am fine with that.
And yes to say half the country was over the top I admit
Fm,
if i was rude in previous post I apologize, obviously we have a completely different view of things.
SteveComment
-
No worries Steve.
I just hope you don't find that Caribbean cricket has been elbowed out by basketball.
Comment
-
it certainly was a few years back, hopefully the recent victories in both men and womens one day will help there.Originally posted by Robert View PostNo worries Steve.
I just hope you don't find that Caribbean cricket has been elbowed out by basketball.
one problem of course is cricket kit is expensive.
i just need to make sure i get good internet.
SteveComment
-
If you know how to bat, then you won't need your pads....
Comment
-
well i did that back in 88.Originally posted by Svensson View PostIf you know how to bat, then you won't need your pads....
when i was younger by far, i needed pads, helmet, arm guard, thigh pad( inner and outer) and chest pad.
these days i just watch.
SteveComment
-
Of course there is a certain irony here: essentially the vote was about sovereignty and, of course, it is Parliament-or to be more precise, the Queen in Parliament-that is sovereign. Therefore I assume the Brexiters would have no objection if the sovereign body took the decision to disregard the advisory vote in the referendum and electet to remain in the EU! And, after all, the bulk of MPs favoured remain.
My principle concern is that Britain has a weak bargaining position, despite what the Brexiters may say. Thus, 44% of our exports goes to the EU, but only 8-17% -depending on how you construe the data-of the EU's exports goes to Britain. And most of our trade surplus is with just two countries-Spain and Germany-but, under EU rules, it would take only a handful of countries to vote no to scupper any deal.
Moreover, most Brexiters would want to remove the free movement of people requirement, often cite Switzerland as an example to follow. However, Switzerland have to accept free movement of people , despite voting in favour of restrictions in a referendum-the EU has refused to negotiate. And, in return for that, they don't even get free trade for some services, including their important financial services market-which, incidentally, also makes up 8% of Britain's economy, equivalent to the entire NHS budget.
By the way, the idea that we could easily replace EU trade with trade outside the EU, i e. with Commonwealth countries, is I'm afraid a fantasy, as trade agreements can take years to conclude-as highlighted by the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated that a trade deal with Britain could take ten years.Last edited by John G; 07-06-2016, 08:50 AM.Comment
-
Hi John
Well, you could also assume that patriotic Britons would have had no objection had the King in Parliament decided to hand the entire country over to the Third Reich in 1939. Or if the Queen in Parliament were to decide next week to cancel all future general elections. In both cases, you'd be wrong.Comment
-
Originally posted by Robert View Post
Robert
Just for the sake of argument,
the referendum was not legally binding, it was described I believe as advisory.
Now the Members are too concerned about losing their salaries not to vote no, but what if they voted in what they actually believed for once?
Seriously what then?
The point is John is not wrong, from a legal point of view!
You also suggest two scenarios, which the monarch does not have the power to enact, the powers they have are extremely limited.
It is a point to wonder about
Steve
steveLast edited by Elamarna; 07-06-2016, 08:59 AM.Comment
-
Hi Robert,Originally posted by Robert View Post
Yes, I'm sure that there would be objections. In fact, they may decide that they're not so keen on Parliamentary sovereignty after all, hence the irony! However, as Britain has Parliamentary sovereignty, not constitutional sovereignty-like America, for instance-both of the examples you cite would be lawful.Comment
-
John,Originally posted by John G View Post
surely that is wrong, the king/queen cannot change the law can they?
surely in those examples parliament could propose those issues which the King /Queen would have to agree to.
SteveComment
-
John, Steve
Speaking personally, I have no respect for Parliament - because of the people housed within it.
The scenarios that you're suggesting could indeed take place. Parliament could decide to ignore the votes of the majority. What would happen then? I don't know - civil war maybe?Comment
-
RobertOriginally posted by Robert View Post
At least our views on many, not all, in the house are in broad agreement.
I doubt it would come to violence, and probably not even a general election.
It may however lead to an interesting election next time round.
SteveComment
-
Hi Steve,Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
Yes, in reality the monarch today is just a figurehead. Thus, in theory the Queen could withhold the Royal Ascent from a bill passed by Parliament-and therefore retains the right of veto- but in reality that isn't going to happen. Or, if it did we'd have a serious constitutional crises!
For completeness, it is Parliament that passes legislation and the Monarch that applies the Royal Ascent, at which point the Bill becomes law i.e. an Act of Parliament, although I believe that in theory the Monarch could introduce a Bill into Parliament, which Parliament would have to accept or reject.
Also see: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-d...013-33999.htmlLast edited by John G; 07-06-2016, 09:31 AM.Comment
-
I was brought up on the idea that the monarchy can, if necessary, play a vital role in safeguarding our liberties. For instance, the monarch can refuse assent to any bill cancelling elections and suchlike measures. Having seen the Queen's performance over the last few decades, I've come to the conclusion that this is BS.Comment
Comment