Discussion:
Vince Cable: Young 'shafted' over Brexit
(too old to reply)
MM
2017-08-07 07:11:33 UTC
Permalink
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.

Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Omega
2017-08-07 07:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
So, having disenfranchised yourself, you will no longer have a say in
matters Brexit. Nor your mate Vince, for that matter!

Clever fucker aren't you!

omega
Yellow
2017-08-07 14:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omega
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
So, having disenfranchised yourself, you will no longer have a say in
matters Brexit. Nor your mate Vince, for that matter!
Clever fucker aren't you!
omega
Vince Cable is one of my least favourite politicians and he is living up
to my usual expectations.
Norman Wells
2017-08-07 08:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
How old's Vince? Can you tell us?
Ian Jackson
2017-08-07 16:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
How old's Vince? Can you tell us?
75 (I think?).
--
Ian
Dean Jackson
2017-08-07 23:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
How old's Vince? Can you tell us?
75 (I think?).
But evidently young at heart.
D.J.
Bod
2017-08-07 08:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
James Harris
2017-08-07 09:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
Cable sits in office, thinks: "How can I phrase this to tap in to the
preconceptions of young voters and increase the divisions in society?"

"Got it!"


The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
--
James Harris
Bod
2017-08-07 09:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Harris
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
Cable sits in office, thinks: "How can I phrase this to tap in to the
preconceptions of young voters and increase the divisions in society?"
"Got it!"
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
James Harris
2017-08-07 10:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
Cable sits in office, thinks: "How can I phrase this to tap in to the
preconceptions of young voters and increase the divisions in society?"
"Got it!"
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
Agreed. By him parroting existing memes he is in danger of being seen to
be doing nothing more than jumping on an existing bandwagon.
--
James Harris
Mike Swift
2017-08-07 11:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.

Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Bod
2017-08-07 11:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
Mike
Ha, that's true :-)
Vidcapper
2017-08-07 14:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
And these were supposedly university squality students...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Col
2017-08-08 07:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
They were offered an election bribe, and some of them fell for it.
But election bribes are nothing new.
--
Col
Ian Jackson
2017-08-08 07:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
They were offered an election bribe, and some of them fell for it.
But election bribes are nothing new.
There are bribes and bribes. What was the "£350M for the NHS" if it
wasn't a bribe?
--
Ian
Col
2017-08-08 07:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Col
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
They were offered an election bribe, and some of them fell for it.
But election bribes are nothing new.
There are bribes and bribes. What was the "£350M for the NHS" if it
wasn't a bribe?
I'll see your £350m and raise you a cool £1bn to bribe the DUP to
support the Tories!
--
Col
Ian Jackson
2017-08-08 07:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Col
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
They were offered an election bribe, and some of them fell for it.
But election bribes are nothing new.
There are bribes and bribes. What was the "£350M for the NHS" if it
wasn't a bribe?
I'll see your £350m and raise you a cool £1bn to bribe the DUP to
support the Tories!
You win.
"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run"
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 08:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Col
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
They were offered an election bribe, and some of them fell for it.
But election bribes are nothing new.
There are bribes and bribes. What was the "£350M for the NHS" if it
wasn't a bribe?
I'll see your £350m and raise you a cool £1bn to bribe the DUP to
support the Tories!
It's hardly bribing the DUP. The money will not be spent on
backhanders, lavish yachts and parties for them, but on infrastructure
and services for the Northern Irish people.
Col
2017-08-08 08:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Col
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Col
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
They were offered an election bribe, and some of them fell for it.
But election bribes are nothing new.
There are bribes and bribes. What was the "£350M for the NHS" if it
wasn't a bribe?
I'll see your £350m and raise you a cool £1bn to bribe the DUP to
support the Tories!
It's hardly bribing the DUP. The money will not be spent on
backhanders, lavish yachts and parties for them, but on infrastructure
and services for the Northern Irish people.
One man's deal is another man's bribe.
It's like the terrorist or freedom fighter debate.
--
Col
Yellow
2017-08-08 13:05:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@btinternet.com
says...
Post by Col
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Col
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Col
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
They were offered an election bribe, and some of them fell for it.
But election bribes are nothing new.
There are bribes and bribes. What was the "£350M for the NHS" if it
wasn't a bribe?
I'll see your £350m and raise you a cool £1bn to bribe the DUP to
support the Tories!
It's hardly bribing the DUP. The money will not be spent on
backhanders, lavish yachts and parties for them, but on infrastructure
and services for the Northern Irish people.
One man's deal is another man's bribe.
True, but having the upper hand and using it to extract extra government
money for your region is still not a bribe.

But as a chap is taking the government to court on this very topic, we
will soon know for sure.
Post by Col
It's like the terrorist or freedom fighter debate.
No.... not really.
Col
2017-08-08 13:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Col
One man's deal is another man's bribe.
True, but having the upper hand and using it to extract extra government
money for your region is still not a bribe.
The government are paying a large sum of money to ensure that
legislation passes smoothly. Sounds an awful lot like a 'bribe' to me!
Post by Yellow
But as a chap is taking the government to court on this very topic, we
will soon know for sure.
Post by Col
It's like the terrorist or freedom fighter debate.
No.... not really.
Yes.... really.
It's just looking at the same situation from opposing viewpoints.
--
Col
Yellow
2017-08-08 13:29:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@btinternet.com
says...
Post by Col
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Col
One man's deal is another man's bribe.
True, but having the upper hand and using it to extract extra government
money for your region is still not a bribe.
The government are paying a large sum of money to ensure that
legislation passes smoothly. Sounds an awful lot like a 'bribe' to me!
Post by Yellow
But as a chap is taking the government to court on this very topic, we
will soon know for sure.
Post by Col
It's like the terrorist or freedom fighter debate.
No.... not really.
Yes.... really.
It's just looking at the same situation from opposing viewpoints.
Still no because a bribe is not a bribe simple because you say it is a
bribe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010
abelard
2017-08-08 13:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Col
One man's deal is another man's bribe.
True, but having the upper hand and using it to extract extra government
money for your region is still not a bribe.
The government are paying a large sum of money to ensure that
legislation passes smoothly. Sounds an awful lot like a 'bribe' to me!
peanuts...and much of it would have been paid anywhere...

taken from one pocket and put into another...just as with
the dole and the nhs...

just as with moneybags and his employees...

it's the way of the world...not some manner of special case

it's exactly what governments do every every day...

well worth it to keep the fascist 'new' labour party from power...

well worth it so's the incompetent don't end up living in doorways

or breaking into my house
Post by Col
Post by Yellow
But as a chap is taking the government to court on this very topic, we
will soon know for sure.
Post by Col
It's like the terrorist or freedom fighter debate.
No.... not really.
Yes.... really.
It's just looking at the same situation from opposing viewpoints.
--
www.abelard.org
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 08:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Col
Post by Mike Swift
Post by Bod
Post by James Harris
The one good thing in the current climate is that if it has any success
it is likely only to reduce youth support for Labour.
Indeed, I'm sure they've got the intelligence to see through him.
They weren't intelligent enough to see through Corbyn.
They were offered an election bribe, and some of them fell for it.
But election bribes are nothing new.
There are bribes and bribes. What was the "£350M for the NHS" if it
wasn't a bribe?
I think a bribe has to be of personal benefit, not universal.
Ophelia
2017-08-07 13:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.

==

He just wants his own way and he is doing an MM and twisting everything to
suit his agenda!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Bod
2017-08-07 14:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
==
He just wants his own way and he is doing an MM and twisting everything
to suit his agenda!
Totally agree.
Ian Jackson
2017-08-07 16:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2017-08-07 16:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.

Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy. They
should be ashamed to consider themselves democrats, and especially
Liberal Democrats when neither word applies, especially the latter.
pensive hamster
2017-08-07 17:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Bod writes
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative

"...Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised
by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing
review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected
by the people.[103][104][105][106]"
Post by Norman Wells
They
should be ashamed to consider themselves democrats, and especially
Liberal Democrats when neither word applies, especially the latter.
Perhaps those who wish to shut down the ongoing debates
are the real deniers of democracy.
Norman Wells
2017-08-07 18:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision to
the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Sid
2017-08-07 18:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision to
the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Or Moaning old muppets like Jackson.

Moaning like the sad loser for over a year.

If Jackson was so concerned about the UK. Why did he vote for The Labour
Party. A party whose sole intent it to bring down The Government.

Sore loser does not come close to describing Remoaners.

--
Ian Jackson
2017-08-07 19:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid
If Jackson was so concerned about the UK. Why did he vote for The
Labour Party.
How do YOU know how I voted? I think we should be told!
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2017-08-07 20:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision
to the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Or Moaning old muppets like Jackson.
Moaning like the sad loser for over a year.
If Jackson was so concerned about the UK. Why did he vote for The Labour
Party. A party whose sole intent it to bring down The Government.
Well, of course it was. It's its job.

But it was still in favour of Brexit and abiding by the decision of the
British people to leave.
Sid
2017-08-07 20:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Sid
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision
to the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Or Moaning old muppets like Jackson.
Moaning like the sad loser for over a year.
If Jackson was so concerned about the UK. Why did he vote for The
Labour Party. A party whose sole intent it to bring down The Government.
Well, of course it was. It's its job.
But it was still in favour of Brexit and abiding by the decision of the
British people to leave.
Corbyn is in favour of Brexit. Jackson isnt.
tim...
2017-08-08 07:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Sid
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision to
the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Or Moaning old muppets like Jackson.
Moaning like the sad loser for over a year.
If Jackson was so concerned about the UK. Why did he vote for The Labour
Party. A party whose sole intent it to bring down The Government.
Well, of course it was. It's its job.
But it was still in favour of Brexit and abiding by the decision of the
British people to leave.
Corbyn is in favour of Brexit. Jackson isnt.
well maybe

but I don't see how you can extrapolate the rest of his politics from that

Brexit isn't a Left-Right argument

tim
tim...
2017-08-08 07:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Sid
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision to
the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Or Moaning old muppets like Jackson.
Moaning like the sad loser for over a year.
If Jackson was so concerned about the UK. Why did he vote for The Labour
Party. A party whose sole intent it to bring down The Government.
Well, of course it was. It's its job.
But it was still in favour of Brexit
Or not

depending on which day of the week it was

and who you asked

tim
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 08:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Sid
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision
to the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Or Moaning old muppets like Jackson.
Moaning like the sad loser for over a year.
If Jackson was so concerned about the UK. Why did he vote for The
Labour Party. A party whose sole intent it to bring down The Government.
Well, of course it was. It's its job.
But it was still in favour of Brexit
Or not
depending on which day of the week it was
and who you asked
Where's Todal when you need him to cloud an issue completely?
pensive hamster
2017-08-08 10:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision to
the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 10:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision to
the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
Yes. It's asking again and again until you get the result you want,
which then magically becomes the final decision.

When it was put to the people it was made clear it was a once in a
generation thing, that it was our chance to decide our future, and
whatever we decided in that referendum the government would do.

If Crewe Alexandra beat Manchester United in an FA Cup match, should it
be replayed until the right side wins? Would that be fair? Why should
Crewe have to go through it all over again? The rules were clear at the
start, and they won fair and square.
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-08 11:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision to
the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
Yes. It's asking again and again until you get the result you want,
which then magically becomes the final decision.
People are being encouraged to believe that they can change anything,
e.g. their gender, their exam results. In America, they seem to be
trying to change the result of an election. Over here, a referendum
result. Soon, nothing will ever be decided once and for all. Perhaps
it is the end of progress, and the beginning of a future of endless
meddling?
Post by Norman Wells
When it was put to the people it was made clear it was a once in a
generation thing, that it was our chance to decide our future, and
whatever we decided in that referendum the government would do.
If Crewe Alexandra beat Manchester United in an FA Cup match, should it
be replayed until the right side wins? Would that be fair? Why should
Crewe have to go through it all over again? The rules were clear at the
start, and they won fair and square.
Ian Jackson
2017-08-08 12:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
If Crewe Alexandra beat Manchester United in an FA Cup match, should it
be replayed until the right side wins? Would that be fair? Why should
Crewe have to go through it all over again? The rules were clear at
the start, and they won fair and square.
What if it was found afterwards that Crewe Alexandra had been playing
with 15 men?
--
Ian
tim...
2017-08-08 13:12:37 UTC
Permalink
If Crewe Alexandra beat Manchester United in an FA Cup match, should it be
replayed until the right side wins? Would that be fair? Why should Crewe
have to go through it all over again? The rules were clear at the start,
and they won fair and square.
What if it was found afterwards that Crewe Alexandra had been playing with
15 men?
irrelevant if that was because Man U were playing with 16

tim
MM
2017-08-09 06:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
When it was put to the people it was made clear it was a once in a
generation thing
Where's your evidence for that claim? Where, when and how was it made
clear?

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Yellow
2017-08-08 12:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision to
the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
What was wrong with the first answer?
tim...
2017-08-08 13:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Parliament is the servant of the people. It delegated this decision to
the people, who decided. It is incumbent on Parliament to act in
accordance with that democratic decision.
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
if they can be 100% honest about what staying in means, then perhaps

but they can't

and they won't be

they will pretend it is a great nirvana, with the UK in control of its
direction of travel - when the reality is that if we do crawl back to be let
back it we will have even less control over the direction of travel than we
did before

tim
Bod
2017-08-07 18:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Bod writes
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"...Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised
by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing
review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected
by the people.[103][104][105][106]"
Post by Norman Wells
They
should be ashamed to consider themselves democrats, and especially
Liberal Democrats when neither word applies, especially the latter.
Perhaps those who wish to shut down the ongoing debates
are the real deniers of democracy.
Er, those who do not accept a demographic vote are the deniers.
Bod
2017-08-07 19:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Bod writes
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"...Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised
by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing
review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected
by the people.[103][104][105][106]"
Post by Norman Wells
They
should be ashamed to consider themselves democrats, and especially
Liberal Democrats when neither word applies, especially the latter.
Perhaps those who wish to shut down the ongoing debates
are the real deniers of democracy.
Er, those who do not accept a *demographic* vote are the deniers.
Make that *democratic* :-)
pensive hamster
2017-08-08 10:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Bod writes
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"...Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised
by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing
review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected
by the people.[103][104][105][106]"
Post by Norman Wells
They
should be ashamed to consider themselves democrats, and especially
Liberal Democrats when neither word applies, especially the latter.
Perhaps those who wish to shut down the ongoing debates
are the real deniers of democracy.
Er, those who do not accept a *demographic* vote are the deniers.
Make that *democratic* :-)
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
Bod
2017-08-08 10:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Bod
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"...Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised
by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing
review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected
by the people.[103][104][105][106]"
Post by Norman Wells
They
should be ashamed to consider themselves democrats, and especially
Liberal Democrats when neither word applies, especially the latter.
Perhaps those who wish to shut down the ongoing debates
are the real deniers of democracy.
Er, those who do not accept a *demographic* vote are the deniers.
Make that *democratic* :-)
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
You mean keep having a referendum until you get the result that you want?
MM
2017-08-09 06:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
You mean keep having a referendum until you get the result that you want?
But why would that be undemodratic? Surely if the people get to vote,
it's their freely expressed decision to choose which position they
support. They may have changed their mind either way since the
previous election.

Consider the typical"cooling off" period that now has to be offered
when people sign certain contracts. It's the same kind of thing.
People's enthusiasm for something wanes and they wish they'd never
"done" it. They get a second chance.

So why not with the EU referendum?

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Vidcapper
2017-08-08 07:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to reverse
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?

Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
tim...
2017-08-08 07:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to reverse
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to the
first?
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
I'm sure that some of them even wanted the end result of being out

they were just not prepared to suffer the problems of getting there

tim
Ian Jackson
2017-08-08 08:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to
reverse Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite
result to the first?
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion
of those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should
be respected.
I'm sure that some of them even wanted the end result of being out
You may be - to some extent - correct.

Most of us know that the EU is far from perfect, and would love to have
all the advantages without any of the disadvantages. If it meant leaving
the EU to achieve this Utopian situation, I can't see many Remainers
wanting to remain! However, it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable
future, and I guess we compared the rough with the smooth, and in the
circumstances we decided it was better to stay.
Post by tim...
they were just not prepared to suffer the problems of getting there
What 'problems'? Many Brexiteers have assured us that there won't be
many problems. But if there ARE some problems, and if they are
insurmountable, will we ever 'get there'?
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 08:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by tim...
they were just not prepared to suffer the problems of getting there
What 'problems'? Many Brexiteers have assured us that there won't be
many problems. But if there ARE some problems, and if they are
insurmountable, will we ever 'get there'?
We'll get somewhere. It's inevitable.
Ian Jackson
2017-08-08 09:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by tim...
they were just not prepared to suffer the problems of getting there
What 'problems'? Many Brexiteers have assured us that there won't be
many problems. But if there ARE some problems, and if they are
insurmountable, will we ever 'get there'?
We'll get somewhere. It's inevitable.
A lot of Brexiteers (probably those who can't afford crystal balls) have
said that they don't care where it is - as long as it's not here.
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 11:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by tim...
they were just not prepared to suffer the problems of getting there
What 'problems'? Many Brexiteers have assured us that there won't be
many problems. But if there ARE some problems, and if they are
insurmountable, will we ever 'get there'?
We'll get somewhere. It's inevitable.
A lot of Brexiteers (probably those who can't afford crystal balls) have
said that they don't care where it is - as long as it's not here.
They've made the decision to leave home, and are determined to make the
best of it they can. It would be defeatist to go back. There's a new
life to be forged, their own mistakes to make, and their own triumphs to
enjoy.

Did you never leave home?
Yellow
2017-08-08 13:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Most of us know that the EU is far from perfect, and would love to have
all the advantages without any of the disadvantages. If it meant leaving
the EU to achieve this Utopian situation, I can't see many Remainers
wanting to remain! However, it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable
future, and I guess we compared the rough with the smooth, and in the
circumstances we decided it was better to stay.
And you were as entitled to your judgement, as are those who came to the
opposite conclusion that we would be better out of the EU than inside of
it.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by tim...
they were just not prepared to suffer the problems of getting there
What 'problems'? Many Brexiteers have assured us that there won't be
many problems.
No, "many Brexiteers" did not assure that there would not be problems
leaving an institution we have been part of for 50 years. Quite the
opposite in fact, and it has always been extremely clear that it would
be a rocky path.
Post by Ian Jackson
But if there ARE some problems, and if they are
insurmountable, will we ever 'get there'?
Try looking at it from the opposite perspective perhaps.

You are clear that there is nothing that the EU can come up with that
the UK cannot cope with, embrace or over come? Yes? That is why you
think EU membership is the way to go, not perfect but workable with the
advantages, as you see them, being greater than the disadvantages, as
you see them.

Do I have that right?

So why are you demanding that people who feel the opposite, that outside
of the EU the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages, as they see
them, is an unreasonable position?

Why are you demanding that there are no advantages outside of the EU and
that the ride is easy when you are not demanding that of your own
position as someone who wishes to remain in the EU?
Yellow
2017-08-08 13:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Most of us know that the EU is far from perfect, and would love to have
all the advantages without any of the disadvantages. If it meant leaving
the EU to achieve this Utopian situation, I can't see many Remainers
wanting to remain! However, it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable
future, and I guess we compared the rough with the smooth, and in the
circumstances we decided it was better to stay.
And you were as entitled to your judgement, as are those who came to the
opposite conclusion that we would be better out of the EU than inside of
it.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by tim...
they were just not prepared to suffer the problems of getting there
What 'problems'? Many Brexiteers have assured us that there won't be
many problems.
No, "many Brexiteers" did not assure that there would not be problems
leaving an institution we have been part of for 50 years. Quite the
opposite in fact, and it has always been extremely clear that it would
be a rocky path.
Post by Ian Jackson
But if there ARE some problems, and if they are
insurmountable, will we ever 'get there'?
Try looking at it from the opposite perspective perhaps.
You are clear that there is nothing that the EU can come up with that
the UK cannot cope with, embrace or over come? Yes? That is why you
think EU membership is the way to go, not perfect but workable with the
advantages, as you see them, being greater than the disadvantages, as
you see them.
Do I have that right?
So why are you demanding that people who feel the opposite, that outside
of the EU the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages, as they see
them, is an unreasonable position?
Why are you demanding that there are no advantages outside of the EU and
that the ride is easy when you are not demanding that of your own
position as someone who wishes to remain in the EU?
I surely mean "no disadvantages outside of the EU".
pensive hamster
2017-08-08 10:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to reverse
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
Post by Vidcapper
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
What is a hardcore remoaner? Are there softcore remainers as well?

Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 11:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to reverse
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
No, that would then be one-all. We'd need a replay, a penalty
shoot-out, or the toss of a coin to decide it.
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 11:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
We have to leave, and give everything a chance to settle down, before we
can possibly decide if it was a good idea or not. Until we leave, we're
still full members of the EU, have to pay our subs, and are subject to
its rules including not negotiating bilateral trade deals outside the EU.

No-one can foretell the future, and no-one is in any position to say if
the future will be good or not until it becomes the past. So, by all
means have a review, but in 30 or 40 years time when we can look back
with perspective.

Just as we did last year in connection with our decision to join the EU
in 1973.
Yellow
2017-08-08 12:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to reverse
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
Post by Vidcapper
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
What is a hardcore remoaner? Are there softcore remainers as well?
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
If it had been suggested and agreed before the referendum took place
then that would have been democratic, but to call another referendum
now, because it returned the answer you do not like, would be
undemocratic.
Ian Jackson
2017-08-08 13:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to reverse
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
Post by Vidcapper
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
What is a hardcore remoaner? Are there softcore remainers as well?
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
If it had been suggested and agreed before the referendum took place
then that would have been democratic, but to call another referendum
now, because it returned the answer you do not like, would be
undemocratic.
If there was another referendum, and the result was to remain, would
that mean that The Will Of The People had been thwarted?

Or would it simply mean that The Will Of The People had changed?
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-08-08 13:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to reverse
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
Post by Vidcapper
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
What is a hardcore remoaner? Are there softcore remainers as well?
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
If it had been suggested and agreed before the referendum took place
then that would have been democratic, but to call another referendum
now, because it returned the answer you do not like, would be
undemocratic.
If there was another referendum, and the result was to remain, would
that mean that The Will Of The People had been thwarted?
Or would it simply mean that The Will Of The People had changed?
It would mean that we would need another referendum, just to be sure.
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 13:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to reverse
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
Post by Vidcapper
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
What is a hardcore remoaner? Are there softcore remainers as well?
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
If it had been suggested and agreed before the referendum took place
then that would have been democratic, but to call another referendum
now, because it returned the answer you do not like, would be
undemocratic.
If there was another referendum, and the result was to remain, would
that mean that The Will Of The People had been thwarted?
Or would it simply mean that The Will Of The People had changed?
It would mean that we would need another referendum, just to be sure.
Nooo! Extra time and a penalty shoot-out is the way to go.
Yellow
2017-08-08 14:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
If there was another referendum, and the result was to remain, would
that mean that The Will Of The People had been thwarted?
Or would it simply mean that The Will Of The People had changed?
It would mean that we would need another referendum, just to be sure.
Nooo! Extra time and a penalty shoot-out is the way to go.
I just wish all these complaints about the referendum format had been
raised before we had it, instead of trying to change the rules now.

It is not like I do not agree with some of the complaints but what is
done is done. Parliament debated the referendum bill and passed it and
that is the basis on which the referendum took place - it was agreed.

And now it must be stood by.

Once we have left the EU however, I see no reason why those who wish to
re-join should not start a campaign for another referendum.
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 13:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote
as you
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to
reverse
Post by Vidcapper
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
Post by Vidcapper
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
What is a hardcore remoaner? Are there softcore remainers as well?
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
If it had been suggested and agreed before the referendum took place
then that would have been democratic, but to call another referendum
now, because it returned the answer you do not like, would be
undemocratic.
If there was another referendum, and the result was to remain, would
that mean that The Will Of The People had been thwarted?
Or would it simply mean that The Will Of The People had changed?
We're talking about whether there should be another referendum, not
assuming there has been one.

But your questions demonstrate the complete uncertainty another
referendum might bring. Neither question can be answered definitively,
and it would be a recipe for chaos.

That, in itself, is a very good reason not to have one.
Ian Jackson
2017-08-08 15:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a
as you
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to
reverse
Post by Vidcapper
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
Post by Vidcapper
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
What is a hardcore remoaner? Are there softcore remainers as well?
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
If it had been suggested and agreed before the referendum took place
then that would have been democratic, but to call another referendum
now, because it returned the answer you do not like, would be
undemocratic.
If there was another referendum, and the result was to remain, would
that mean that The Will Of The People had been thwarted?
Or would it simply mean that The Will Of The People had changed?
We're talking about whether there should be another referendum, not
assuming there has been one.
But your questions demonstrate the complete uncertainty another
referendum might bring. Neither question can be answered definitively,
and it would be a recipe for chaos.
That, in itself, is a very good reason not to have one.
The true implications of Brexit are now a lot clearer (or at least more
apparent) than they portrayed before the referendum. Are you saying that
even when new information becomes available, The People shouldn't be
allowed the opportunity to change their mind?
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 15:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a > >>
as you
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to
reverse
Post by Vidcapper
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite
result to
Post by Vidcapper
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
Post by Vidcapper
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant
proportion of
Post by Vidcapper
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
What is a hardcore remoaner? Are there softcore remainers as well?
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
If it had been suggested and agreed before the referendum took place
then that would have been democratic, but to call another referendum
now, because it returned the answer you do not like, would be
undemocratic.
If there was another referendum, and the result was to remain, would
that mean that The Will Of The People had been thwarted?
Or would it simply mean that The Will Of The People had changed?
We're talking about whether there should be another referendum, not
assuming there has been one.
But your questions demonstrate the complete uncertainty another
referendum might bring. Neither question can be answered
definitively, and it would be a recipe for chaos.
That, in itself, is a very good reason not to have one.
The true implications of Brexit are now a lot clearer (or at least more
apparent) than they portrayed before the referendum. Are you saying that
even when new information becomes available, The People shouldn't be
allowed the opportunity to change their mind?
Nothing will be clear until we've left and gone our own way in the world
for probably 30 or 40 years, ie the time it's taken us to get round to
another referendum on the decision to go into the EU in 1973.

If there seems to be a mood for re-evaluation in 30 or 40 years time,
let's have another referendum then.
Vidcapper
2017-08-09 06:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Nothing will be clear until we've left and gone our own way in the world
for probably 30 or 40 years, ie the time it's taken us to get round to
another referendum on the decision to go into the EU in 1973.
If there seems to be a mood for re-evaluation in 30 or 40 years time,
let's have another referendum then.
I can't imagine the EU will still *existing* by then...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Yellow
2017-08-08 16:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
But your questions demonstrate the complete uncertainty another
referendum might bring. Neither question can be answered definitively,
and it would be a recipe for chaos.
That, in itself, is a very good reason not to have one.
The true implications of Brexit are now a lot clearer (or at least more
apparent) than they portrayed before the referendum. Are you saying that
even when new information becomes available, The People shouldn't be
allowed the opportunity to change their mind?
What new information is that? What is on your list that is so new that
it never came up during the campaign or was not common knowledge to
anyone who took an interest in the EU, that it changes everything?
tim...
2017-08-08 19:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
But your questions demonstrate the complete uncertainty another
referendum might bring. Neither question can be answered definitively,
and it would be a recipe for chaos.
That, in itself, is a very good reason not to have one.
The true implications of Brexit are now a lot clearer (or at least more
apparent) than they portrayed before the referendum. Are you saying that
even when new information becomes available, The People shouldn't be
allowed the opportunity to change their mind?
What new information is that? What is on your list that is so new that
it never came up during the campaign or was not common knowledge to
anyone who took an interest in the EU, that it changes everything?
the 100 billion pound bill

tim
Yellow
2017-08-08 21:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
But your questions demonstrate the complete uncertainty another
referendum might bring. Neither question can be answered definitively,
and it would be a recipe for chaos.
That, in itself, is a very good reason not to have one.
The true implications of Brexit are now a lot clearer (or at least more
apparent) than they portrayed before the referendum. Are you saying that
even when new information becomes available, The People shouldn't be
allowed the opportunity to change their mind?
What new information is that? What is on your list that is so new that
it never came up during the campaign or was not common knowledge to
anyone who took an interest in the EU, that it changes everything?
the 100 billion pound bill
That high figure is bluster but it is not new news that money would be
demanded to "settle up".
Vidcapper
2017-08-09 06:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
But your questions demonstrate the complete uncertainty another
referendum might bring. Neither question can be answered definitively,
and it would be a recipe for chaos.
That, in itself, is a very good reason not to have one.
The true implications of Brexit are now a lot clearer (or at least more
apparent) than they portrayed before the referendum. Are you saying that
even when new information becomes available, The People shouldn't be
allowed the opportunity to change their mind?
What new information is that? What is on your list that is so new that
it never came up during the campaign or was not common knowledge to
anyone who took an interest in the EU, that it changes everything?
the 100 billion pound bill
Wasn't that about Corbyn's student loans wipeout?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Vidcapper
2017-08-09 06:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
The true implications of Brexit are now a lot clearer (or at least more
apparent) than they portrayed before the referendum. Are you saying that
even when new information becomes available, The People shouldn't be
allowed the opportunity to change their mind?
What new information is that? What is on your list that is so new that
it never came up during the campaign or was not common knowledge to
anyone who took an interest in the EU, that it changes everything?
To Remoaners, the EU is almost a religion, therefore to question it is
akin to heresy...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
tim...
2017-08-08 19:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Yellow
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a
as you
Post by Vidcapper
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy.
Not necessarily. This country has a parliamentary democracy
which involves an ongoing process of debate, discussion and
review, which sometimes leads to evolution or changes in policy.
Then on that basis, surely the only thing that should be able to
reverse
Post by Vidcapper
Brexit would be another referendum that produced an opposite result to
the first?
Yes, that is how I see it too.
Post by Vidcapper
Unfortunately for hardcore remoaners, even a significant proportion of
those who voted Remain, accept that the democratic result should be
respected.
What is a hardcore remoaner? Are there softcore remainers as well?
Would it be undemocratic for parliament to consult the voters
once again to see if they still think Brexit is a good idea, once
whatever Brexit means in practice becomes clearer?
If it had been suggested and agreed before the referendum took place
then that would have been democratic, but to call another referendum
now, because it returned the answer you do not like, would be
undemocratic.
If there was another referendum, and the result was to remain, would
that mean that The Will Of The People had been thwarted?
Or would it simply mean that The Will Of The People had changed?
We're talking about whether there should be another referendum, not
assuming there has been one.
But your questions demonstrate the complete uncertainty another referendum
might bring. Neither question can be answered definitively, and it would
be a recipe for chaos.
That, in itself, is a very good reason not to have one.
The true implications of Brexit are now a lot clearer (or at least more
apparent) than they portrayed before the referendum.
The difficultly of the negotiations is, agreed that is worse than anybody
suggested that it would be

But the threats of how badly it would affect the UK economy has, so far,
been proven to be hollow.

I don't believe that you will find a set of Leavers who, having previous
disregarded threats of flood, famine and petulance will think that the
current position is worse and vote to stay in on that basis.
Post by Ian Jackson
Are you saying that even when new information becomes available, The
People shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to change their mind?
All of the current uncertainty is because the EU are playing silly buggers
with the negotiation. We still have 18 months to go and things may turn
around

It would be ridiculous to suggest that now is the time to "ask again"

tim
Vidcapper
2017-08-09 06:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
It would be ridiculous to suggest that now is the time to "ask again"
To opponents of Brexit, every day since 23/6/2016 has been the time to
ask again. 8)

The simply cannot grasp that a lot of people have derived no discernible
benefit from our EU membership, therefore they simply slander them as
'xenophobic little-Englanders'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
MM
2017-08-09 06:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
If it had been suggested and agreed before the referendum took place
then that would have been democratic, but to call another referendum
now, because it returned the answer you do not like, would be
undemocratic.
I just don't see why allowing the electorate to have a vote is
undemocratic, even if the referendum were repeated once a month for
the next two years. It's not as if you're *forcing* them to vote!

Plus, they have, under our system, the option of not voting.

So how is it undemocratic?

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

MM
2017-08-07 18:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
You're lying. The majority was 1,269,501

"Leave 17,410,742
Remain 16,141,241"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
Post by Norman Wells
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy. They
should be ashamed to consider themselves democrats, and especially
Liberal Democrats when neither word applies, especially the latter.
Some upholder YOU are of democracy when you tell porkies like
"substantial majority of 1.7 million votes".

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Norman Wells
2017-08-07 20:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It was a democratic decision arrived at by as democratic a vote as you
can get, after 100 days of seemingly endless debate. And it was
achieved by a subtantial majority of 1.7 million votes.
You're lying. The majority was 1,269,501
"Leave 17,410,742
Remain 16,141,241"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
Post by Norman Wells
Those who can't or won't accept it are deniers of democracy. They
should be ashamed to consider themselves democrats, and especially
Liberal Democrats when neither word applies, especially the latter.
Some upholder YOU are of democracy when you tell porkies like
"substantial majority of 1.7 million votes".
That's got absolutely nothing to do with democracy but I have to admit
you're right on the numbers.

The referendum was obviously a clear victory for Remain. Can we at
least agree on that?
Bod
2017-08-07 16:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
I only objected to being accused of "shafting" other voters.
Not exactly diplomatic language from a politician.
Ian Jackson
2017-08-07 18:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're
simply people who are worried about what the UK might become after
we've left the EU.
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters
shouldn't have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
I only objected to being accused of "shafting" other voters.
Not exactly diplomatic language from a politician.
I do concede that point. I've always considered "shaft" to be a thinly
disguised euphemism for "bugger" (literally). "Screw" is yet another
term. You probably wouldn't use any of these terms in the presence of
your maiden aunt (although even maiden aunts can be pretty foul-mouthed
these days).

While I believe in calling a spade "a fucking spade", it would indeed be
better if people like politicians could try and keep things dignified.

Nevertheless, Vince Cable's use of rather 'common' language does not
detract from the validity of his argument - and it is possibly an
indication of his deeply-felt concern for what might happen to the UK.
--
Ian
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-07 16:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
I think leavers were worried about what the UK might become if we'd
stayed in. Of course, no-one knows what the future holds, but some
leavers seem convinced, even determined, that it will be bad.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It's not just a case of questioning it - I think it's a case of
questioning it over and over again. No-one suggests that remainers
didn't know what they were voting for, either. I voted to remain, but
TBH, that's just how I felt on the day. I do not blame leavers for
getting pissed off. We're seeing a very pro-remain establishment double
down, and it's not something that fills one with much respect for the
democratic process.
Yellow
2017-08-07 17:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left
the EU.
I think leavers were worried about what the UK might become if we'd
stayed in. Of course, no-one knows what the future holds, but some
leavers seem convinced, even determined, that it will be bad.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Bod
What he is in effect saying, is that the older Brexit voters shouldn't
have the freedom to vote who they want to vote for.
In a proper democracy a persons vote should be respected.
He shows disrespect.
You are talking nonsense. You Brexiteers seem fixated on things like
'respect' and 'loyalty'. Many of you seem to have taken the result of
the referendum as a personal victory, and are therefore taking it as a
personal affront when anyone dares question whether you really didn't
think things through properly, and made a big mistake (not just for
yourselves, but for everyone in the UK) when you voted to leave.
It's not just a case of questioning it - I think it's a case of
questioning it over and over again. No-one suggests that remainers
didn't know what they were voting for, either. I voted to remain, but
TBH, that's just how I felt on the day. I do not blame leavers for
getting pissed off. We're seeing a very pro-remain establishment double
down, and it's not something that fills one with much respect for the
democratic process.
You are right in both your replies - spot on in fact.
tim...
2017-08-07 17:15:10 UTC
Permalink
writes
Post by Bod
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Cable is a typical politician and a sore loser.
I think that most Remainers are not sore losers. Instead, they're simply
people who are worried about what the UK might become after we've left the
EU.
but we had a vote on that

and a democratic decision was made

had it gone the other way, there would no doubt be plenty of people worried
about what the UK might become staying in the EU (having eschewed the
opportunity to leave).

The Leavers don't have the moral high ground here (or the economic one, or
the legal one)

tim
Fredxxx
2017-08-07 14:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
Given the young were supporting spend-spend-spend Corbyn perhaps they
thought their future wasn't in the UK when the debts have to be repaid?

If anyone shafted the young, it was Vince Cable and his promise
regarding tuition fees.
Vidcapper
2017-08-08 06:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Translation - he comes out with a load of old tosh!

The young had exactly the same chance to vote on Brexit as everyone
else, but they were outvoted - mainly due to those who were shafted in
the 1974 Referendum!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Ophelia
2017-08-08 08:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
Translation - he comes out with a load of old tosh!

The young had exactly the same chance to vote on Brexit as everyone
else, but they were outvoted - mainly due to those who were shafted in
the 1974 Referendum!

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

==

Would MM have been happy to have been denied a vote? I know I would!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
pullgees
2017-08-08 07:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have been seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser minds prevailed.
Ian Jackson
2017-08-08 08:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have
been seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser
minds prevailed.
Not really. What happened was that as the young people turned into old
people, they could see that they had been conned, and what they had been
told was 'communism' wasn't working - and was never going to. [One
problem is, of course, that communism and populism so easily turns into
totalitarianism and fascism.]
--
Ian
pullgees
2017-08-08 10:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have
been seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser
minds prevailed.
Not really. What happened was that as the young people turned into old
people, they could see that they had been conned, and what they had been
told was 'communism' wasn't working - and was never going to. [One
problem is, of course, that communism and populism so easily turns into
totalitarianism and fascism.]
--
Ian
And those young people back then are now mainly Leavers, having had the wool pulled from their eyes back then, as you say. There are those that never learn such as Corbyn.
A society is in trouble when it becomes too youth orientated and denies the wisdom of its elders.
Ophelia
2017-08-08 08:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
It's what I've been saying all along. The future belongs to the young.
One could argue that old people didn't deserve to vote in the EU
referendum, as they will be dead long before the bad effects they have
brought about kick in.
Good old Vince! He has a habit of calling a spade a spade. Britain
needs more like him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions of
the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and we'd all
be living in a happy land when the means of production have been seized by
the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser minds prevailed.

:)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Norman Wells
2017-08-08 11:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by pullgees
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have
been seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser
minds prevailed.
Are you ignoring the success of the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?
tim...
2017-08-08 13:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pullgees
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have been
seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser minds
prevailed.
Are you ignoring the success of the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?
just think what a mess Venezuela would be in if it wasn't the richest oil
producer in the world

tim
Yellow
2017-08-08 13:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pullgees
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have been
seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser minds
prevailed.
Are you ignoring the success of the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?
just think what a mess Venezuela would be in if it wasn't the richest oil
producer in the world
Politics aside, I still cannot get my head round how royally the leaders
of this country have fucked up.

It should surely be as rich as Saudi Arabia.
pullgees
2017-08-08 17:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pullgees
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have been
seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser minds
prevailed.
Are you ignoring the success of the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?
just think what a mess Venezuela would be in if it wasn't the richest oil
producer in the world
Politics aside, I still cannot get my head round how royally the leaders
of this country have fucked up.
It should surely be as rich as Saudi Arabia.
Unlike Saudi who believed in the trickle down effect - some call it greed but it works. Chavez created a welfare state on the back of the oil price at $150 a barrel,spent and borrowed like Socialist do and can't service their debt as oil is now $45 a barrel. Add to that corruption and you have the perfect storm for national ruin.
tim...
2017-08-08 19:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by pullgees
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pullgees
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have been
seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser minds
prevailed.
Are you ignoring the success of the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?
just think what a mess Venezuela would be in if it wasn't the richest oil
producer in the world
Politics aside, I still cannot get my head round how royally the leaders
of this country have fucked up.
It should surely be as rich as Saudi Arabia.
Unlike Saudi who believed in the trickle down effect - some call it greed
but it works. Chavez created a welfare state on the back of the oil price
at $150 a barrel,spent and borrowed like Socialist do and can't service
their debt as oil is now $45 a barrel. Add to that corruption and you have
the perfect storm for national ruin.
Venezuela was in poor shape before Chavez came to power.

The failure to use oil money to put in place the environment for the poor to
support themselves was the fault of the previous incumbents

That Chavez tried to fix that in a fiscally unworkable way, does not make
the current situation his fault

tim
pullgees
2017-08-08 20:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pullgees
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have been
seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser minds
prevailed.
Are you ignoring the success of the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?
just think what a mess Venezuela would be in if it wasn't the richest oil
producer in the world
Politics aside, I still cannot get my head round how royally the leaders
of this country have fucked up.
It should surely be as rich as Saudi Arabia.
Unlike Saudi who believed in the trickle down effect - some call it greed
but it works. Chavez created a welfare state on the back of the oil price
at $150 a barrel,spent and borrowed like Socialist do and can't service
their debt as oil is now $45 a barrel. Add to that corruption and you have
the perfect storm for national ruin.
Venezuela was in poor shape before Chavez came to power.
The failure to use oil money to put in place the environment for the poor to
support themselves was the fault of the previous incumbents
That Chavez tried to fix that in a fiscally unworkable way, does not make
the current situation his fault
tim
Have you ever heard of cause and effect? All current situations are the result of a chain of events and Chavez was a major part of that chain.
Yellow
2017-08-08 21:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by pullgees
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pullgees
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have been
seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser minds
prevailed.
Are you ignoring the success of the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?
just think what a mess Venezuela would be in if it wasn't the richest oil
producer in the world
Politics aside, I still cannot get my head round how royally the leaders
of this country have fucked up.
It should surely be as rich as Saudi Arabia.
Unlike Saudi who believed in the trickle down effect - some call it greed
but it works. Chavez created a welfare state on the back of the oil price
at $150 a barrel,spent and borrowed like Socialist do and can't service
their debt as oil is now $45 a barrel. Add to that corruption and you have
the perfect storm for national ruin.
Venezuela was in poor shape before Chavez came to power.
The failure to use oil money to put in place the environment for the poor to
support themselves was the fault of the previous incumbents
That Chavez tried to fix that in a fiscally unworkable way, does not make
the current situation his fault
Do what?

He had 16 years to turn the country around on the back of its oil and
instead went on a monster spending spree, financed by borrowing.

And then the next fellow came along and did more of the same for three
more years.

That is 19 years total of missed opportunity due to political
incompetence.
Yellow
2017-08-08 21:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by pullgees
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pullgees
Sixty years ago many young people thought Mao and Stalin were champions
of the down trodden masses, that communism would defeat capitalism and
we'd all be living in a happy land when the means of production have been
seized by the workers. Fortunately for us all, older and wiser minds
prevailed.
Are you ignoring the success of the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?
just think what a mess Venezuela would be in if it wasn't the richest oil
producer in the world
Politics aside, I still cannot get my head round how royally the leaders
of this country have fucked up.
It should surely be as rich as Saudi Arabia.
Unlike Saudi who believed in the trickle down effect - some call it greed but it works. Chavez created a welfare state on the back of the oil price at $150 a barrel,spent and borrowed like Socialist do and can't service their debt as oil is now $45 a barrel. Add to that corruption and you have the perfect storm for national ruin.
I was reading in one of the papers that the leadership also
'nationalised' much of the farm land but then failed to manage it.
Loading...