Prorogation of Parliament.

[jeff oakley]

I have no problem with immigration if it is controlled. We need workers and we should encourage them, however we do not need none English Speaking low skilled people who can get benefits.

 

As you point out the wage in other countries is shockingly low compared to ours so we are a magnet. I too support genuine refugees but many of those who have paid thousands to cross the channel  do not fit the criteria most would agree as being refugees.

[Alan France]

I voted to leave after being told we would leave the customs union, free market and control immigration. I knew there would be risk. I’m for controlled immigration just so Councils can predict how many people they need to plan for, and to properly give access to people from across the world, not just the EU.

 

I just want to be controlled by politicians I can vote out if they mess up. We need to change our own rules as well so that when an MP of any party resigns or crosses the floor we need a local election. To keep accountability.

 

During the last three years I have been surprised just how much control has been quietly passed to the EU.

 

It was pretty obvious that “remainers” would throw everything at Boris in these last three weeks, it may, or may, not be their last chance.  Squeezed a leg 20 years ago, come on!

 

If I had not sold my business and retired all I would want from Government now would be to deliver the result of the referendum, tell me the rules that then apply, and I’ll get back to making a few quid. Further delay will achieve nothing.

 

Time to go.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

2 hours ago, Alan France said:

being told we would leave the customs union, free market and control immigration

 

Where was this promised? I never saw this on the ballot paper? 

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

Were we offered a half-leave-but-pretend-we've-left option then? Leaving means a return to the arrangement prior to joining surely? 

[Steve (sdh2903)]

42 minutes ago, Man On The Clapham Omnibus said:

Were we offered a half-leave-but-pretend-we've-left option then?

 

No and that's the point. There were no clearly detailed options. It was "stay or go"

 

Honestly if the ballot paper said 

 

Stay

 

Leave. With no deal. Hard borders. No customs union. No trade deal.

 

Do you really believe the result of the ballot would have been the same? I find it incredibly hard to believe it would.

[Captain Colonial]

1 hour ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

 

No and that's the point. There were no clearly detailed options. It was "stay or go"

 

Honestly if the ballot paper said 

 

Stay

 

Leave. With no deal. Hard borders. No customs union. No trade deal.

 

Do you really believe the result of the ballot would have been the same? I find it incredibly hard to believe it would.

Definitely no.  If the choice had been:

 

A: Stay

 

B: No deal Leave with no agreements

 

C Get the best possible deal to Leave the EU with a trade and customs deal 

 

I’ll bet it would have been firmly a vote for C.  I’m sure a lot of people voted Remain only because of their justifiable economic concerns over a hard Brexit.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

Remain and be gradually subsumed into a European Superstate with its own army, overarching government, a compulsory single currency, free movement of people (not just workforces), UK's inability to strike trade agreements with outside countries, and the inevitable (in some economists' eyes) collapse of at least two countries' finances, and ultimately of the Euro with all the liabilities foisted upon the wealthier states such as UK. The only saving grace as I see it is that the plans of the Corbyn/McDonnell Supreme Soviet would be thwarted. No when I leave a room I do not leave my  behind, I leave! Could all that have been put on the ballot paper or would you rely on people's common sense to realise it all?

[DonPeffers]

 

The ballot question, agreed by MPs, was first released to the public on 27 Jan 2016.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/638210/EU-referendum-ballot-paper-Brexit-vote-June-23

 

[jim_l]

No deal (i.e. present us with a clearly unacceptable deal) is just a construct being used by the EU as their best option to keep us in.

 

There  never could or would be a permanent or long term  no deal - they send us approaching  €1billion a day worth of stuff, they send us €1billion a week in cars alone, all of which we are entitled under no deal to put tariffs and quotas on.   They have set their stall out to keep us in because they fear the consequences of us being out. 

 

The insistence on agreeing how to leave before future trade is discussed is also a very clever barrier to leaving. It means that we are trying to establish 'How to get there' before we have decided where 'There' is.    The Irish border question is typical of this, how will we know what can and can't work at the border if we simply don't know what our trading relationship will be until later?  

 

What I am certain of is that if our parliamentarians had sat together and worked something out, a little compromise here and there, then turned to face the EU united in the interests of our nation, this would have been done and dusted.   I will never forgive them for that, for putting their own interests first through the most difficult time in our post war history. 

 

Jim

 

 

[Steve (sdh2903)]

22 minutes ago, jim_l said:

 

What I am certain of is that if our parliamentarians had sat together and worked something out, a little compromise here and there, then turned to face the EU united in the interests of our nation, this would have been done and dusted.   I will never forgive them for that, for putting their own interests first through the most difficult time in our post war history. 

 

100% agree.

 

They are more interested in getting their faces in the news, more facebook likes and more retweets on Twitter.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

2 hours ago, Man On The Clapham Omnibus said:

No when I leave a room I do not leave my  behind, I leave! Could all that have been put on the ballot paper or would you rely on people's common sense to realise it all?

 

But when you leave the room do you walk out the door? Or jump headfirst out of the window? Either way you still leave the room, just one way is more sensible than the other. Anyone with common sense would choose the former.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

This metaphor has run its course, has it not? As Monty Python would say: "Too silly!" Leavers, with their perfectly valid reasoning, and remainers with their equally cogent arguments, cannot agree because the respective points of view are based mainly on conjecture as the future is unfathomable. As I may have said before on here, I actually care far less about IN or OUT than I do about keeping Corbyn et al out of power. Any damage caused by Brexit or EU is piddling compared with the havoc they would wreak. 

[CraigHew]

I too voted to leave.

Roll on 31st October.

Power to BoJo....

[corsechris]

32 minutes ago, CraigHew said:

I too voted to leave.

Roll on 31st October.

Power to BoJo....

 

Yep.

 

All the potential outcomes/disasters/plagues of biblical proportions predicted (by both camps) are nothing more than guesswork and spin. We don't know what we don't know. We'll find out when we do.

[Stuart]

I haven't read all this thread, but has anyone mentioned the destruction of young people's futures in order that politicians don't lose face and/or the federal Europe roller coaster isn't derailed?  The Euro is responsible for the exceptionally high youth unemployment rates in Greece, Spain, Italy and elsewhere.  It's a failed currency experiment, and the breathtaking arrogance of continuing with it is a good reason alone to distance ourselves.....