Question for the panel: Do the perceived needs of 3 million citizens (+ possibly a neighbouring foreign country) negate, substantially or entirely, the concerns of 17.4 million citizens? It's a genuine question and I am genuinely interested. Specifically, is the possibility of terrorism by lawless elements of itself a determining factor in creating the fate of a large population? There will be a perhaps irresistible temptation to re-frame this question and then answer that one. This is entirely understandable. However, by doing so, you won't be answering my question. Which is fine. After you are done making the case for your answer, now make the case as to why the UK should, or should not, replace its current laws with sharia.
I was going to open a thread in the life section about porridge and cooking roasties but with these two, fin and 749, most will know where they will take it. Funny old thing can you imagine fin and 749 in a pub together, it will only be a matter of time before one says of the other, I'm bored of him, all he keeps going on about is 300 years ago and who is the most oppressed country, can you imagine anyone so boring? I mention this because, 749 is happy Ireland is independent, Fin wants Scotland to be independent, but when it comes to the people of the U.K. being independent, they casually adopt the fuck you approach whilst still claiming a peoples right to a vote/ability to be independent. Such is the mindset that they do not even see the contradiction of independence is okay for them but no one else We are not asking to go to war with anyone, stop trading with anyone, in fact as relationships that breakdown go, we have sought to remain friends, good friends with our ex partner. The eu IS becoming more centralised to a point it is going in a worrying direction and the U.K. was worried enough to have a vote about our continual membership. Such was the concern, the turn out on the question was the largest turnout since ww2. A democratic majority decision was made and we are happy for the eu to follow it's new path, it's just not a path we ourselves want to follow.
Seems ok to hanker after the past when bashing Britain, but not when saying how things have changed for the worse under EU and how some want to roll back those bits.
It can only become more centralised through treaty which will obviously require future agreement. On the UK’s part this was highly unlikely - both key parties eurosceptic to further alignment and Britain had already regularly excercised its rights of opting out further alignment. Forget whether leaving the EU is for good or bad for a moment. The reason the UK had a vote was David Cameron’s game playing within his party. As a consequence he called it at quite possibly the worst time for his party and a terrible gamble for his country. Just out of recession. During austerity. No thought as to the Northern Irish commitments (he left that to Tony Blair and John Major who many scoffed at). No contingency, no planning, no trade contingencies, nothing. 40 years of legislation to undo at the blink of an eye that his party and civil service would have told him was next to impossible and would strangle the UK’s legislative capability for years. And then from there stemmed further mistakes. Negotiation, premature Article 50 (to begin with an Article 50 process that would have been unlawful - but was not thanks to Gina Miller). And that lack of planning was deliberate. Because Cameron knew to leave without planning would potentially be catastrophic. And he used this to bolster a remain vote and test the mettle of the Right within his party. The vote was held because Cameron gambled.
Be prepared to be disappointed on both counts - no golden drive way and no non-membership in the EU : o D
But the people that voted leave haven't got what they want from the looks of it. Plus if the politicians have their way it seems they won't, ever. Yes - we expected the government to do what was voted for
Poor old Geoffrey Cox QC MP. For a solution to Ireland all he had to do was buy a Ducati, log in here and tap the minds of Britain’s finest international lawyers.
i dont expect many on here to get or understand the make up of the uk or the acts, treaties and conventions that underpin it. no matter what was agreed before, it seems that might is always right in the eyes of the english nationalist (it is a v,english affair) and brexiteers. so loz, yes. in this case they do. brexiteers expect us to just suck it up and respect the vote of 2016 eventho it's compleetly contrary to the promises made in 2014. it also runs a horse and cart througfh the devolution act 1997-8. your gov has fucked it.
WTO for cars is 10% is it not? China impose 25% on UK cars and are looking at reducing to 15% - that is up to China, no one else... same with whisky https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45026053
The majority of mp's in the house of commons are doing exactly what this vote was all about, ignoring the will of the people and doing what THEY want, they are still not listening!! Do they think everyone is just going to sit back quietly while they manipulate another referendum or cancel brexit altogether. Labour are a disgrace, playing party politics no matter what is on the table, they will vote against it.
I honestly don't see how there can be another vote to leave or remain as we have done it once. If we were to have a re-vote then surely we no longer live in a democracy and that any vote that happens in future that doesn't go the way we want it to then we can just keep doing a re-vote until it does ??? utter madness in my eyes. We have voted on what we want so lets get on with it now.
When we vote in a government, it's for five years and then we get to vote again. Maybe the next general election should be for a permanent government?? The first referendum was supposed to be non-binding and nobody knew what terms we might get. Now we know that the terms leave a lot to be desired, imho it's perfectly legitimate to vote on whether to accept the terms or stick with the deal we have already.
