I admire your position, I really do. I just honestly wish that the majority of those who voted Leave had the same sense to go through the same exercise rather than being swayed by popularist rhetoric from the usual bunch of self-serving goons who promised the earth and yet were unable to deliver any of it. Personally I went through a similar exercise and made my own mind up that while the EU is not a perfect solution, it is certainly heading in the right direction and as someone that has lived most of his life as a European, and wishes to continue doing so in the future, I am quite happy to remain as one and enjoy (what I see as) the benefits of being part of the union. YMMV.
Mixed words and meanings there - European isn't the question at all - never has been. We are European
Can you, as a citizen, vote the people who are the commission out of offic e, just as you can the PM or Ministers? Who determines debating timing and schedule: MEPs or Commision? Uk has an elected official, given additional responsibilities as a minister of some kind, and the govt and speaker determine the schedule (from what I can see). And if govt dont want it, speaker can overrule. Is there such a thing as an impartial speaker in Brussels? (Not the the UK one is on some stuff..!)
So what makes you think other leavers didnt? Most I know, there are a few, did. It’s funny that only remainers level ‘thicko’ At leavers. It’s like one choice is so obviously better than the other.....and only the thick and stupid dont see it. And its reinforcing exactly why many people in the north, from poorer areas, voted. The elite lot in London ignore them
In some ways, the British cabinet is similar to how the EU commission is chosen. Uh huh. The UK electorate votes for people who then vote for who is PM and the PM chooses who is in the cabinet. Deselecting the EU Commission though - nothing like how you go about deselecting the British cabinet. The methods in each case are vastly dissimilar. For example, in the case of the EU Commission ... you can't do it. The electorate has no say. That's one difference I can think of, right off the bat. Yes, you keep repeating this point. Dreadful UK politicians, saviour EU bureaucrats. Enough already. Your position is effectively that we are better off under a benevolent government we have no direct say over vs an elected government that is ineffective or malfeasant. Theoretically, it is well established that the best form of government is that of a benevolent dictatorship. This is a well-known principle. Two downsides though - it's only a theory and the EU is not benevolent. It does do its best to fulfill the dictatorship half of the equation. though. I am glad you have done your sums - I wish all Remainers would. In the end, the divide between Leave and Remain seems to be a feature of the wider issue - those who believe in self-reliance, personal responsibility and independence vs those who believe in the principles of collectivism and socialism. I'm glad we got to the bottom of it : o )
There are a number of things that appear to apply to Remainers, in various ways; but it would be difficult to outline them here because they would pretend to be seriously offended and start spouting 'Hate Crime'.
Always thought that the EU determining the negotiating process put us on the back foot from day one. An interesting article from the European perspective: https://www.politico.eu/article/bre...ackstop-theresa-may-how-brussels-blew-brexit/ As both the UK and Ireland will not put up a hard border. The EU and UK will have to accelerate the free trade deal that will remove the need for the border.
Martin wrote: "Sales growth has been strong since our last update. Costs, as previously indicated, are considerably higher than the previous year, especially labour, which has increased by about £30m in the period, but also in other areas, including interest, utilities, repairs and depreciation. "Profit before tax in the first half is expected to be lower than the same period last year. Our expectations for the full year are unchanged." Martin later explained that the cumulative impact of the additional charges would take the cost bill to "more than £40m". The businessman said: "The fact of the matter is that in the pub world ... there are very big cost barriers to overcome." He mentioned steep increases in government-imposed costs such as business rates and minimum wage rules, saying that 43% of a pint is now paid in taxes. He believes there is continued VAT disparity between pubs and restaurants versus the supermarket The value pub chain reported like-for-like sales rising 7.2% compared with the same period last year during the first 12 weeks of its second quarter to 20 January. . any idea what he will be campaigning for next?
Fin loves copy and pasting I see the eu finally owned up https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46961982 remainers, you were warned. Recently I was having some ping pong argument with someone who has dissapeared, jimmy 9 books I called him I tried to explain that on the good friday agreement, there was only two signatries, the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland's government, the eu never was a signatury, and this would cause issues. The U.K. government have declared no hard border of old, the republics government said no hard border of old and the eu said they do not want a hard border but only TWO of those three have signed a legal agreement. In the good friday agreement both signaturies agree not to put in place the hard borders of old Plenty of brexiteers said that the eu was using Ireland as a pawn to stop brexit and now the eu has finally been honest and said a wto/free trade for the U.K. would see the eu demand a hard border in Ireland. The problem is now the republics to sort out because, they signed the gfa which forbids the hard borders of old but the republic will be instructed by the eu to put of a hard border on the republics side. The battle now is for the Irish, which does it follow? The good friday agreement, or the eu's own instruction for a hard border on their side? They can't have both.
