Forum home The potting shed

Brexishambles

1246732

Posts

  • Hostafan1Hostafan1 Posts: 29,146
    Just heard someone on the BBC news from Wales saying that the funding Wales got from EU MUST be continued by Westminster.
    Maybe the Welsh should have checked this before they voted to leave , given that they were net financial beneficiaries . 
    The same could be argued about my neighbours in Cornwall who were the biggest recipients of EU money in England,yet still voted to leave and are doing the same as the Welsh : " but we're still going  to get our subsidies, aren't we?" 
    You just couldn't make this stuff up could you?
    Devon.
  • Hampshire_HogHampshire_Hog Hampshire Coast 100m from the seaPosts: 1,089
    Why would I vote for another referendum I voted once along with the majority and as yet that vote has not been taken to its democratic conclusion. 

    "You don't stop gardening because you get old, you get old because you stop gardening." - The Hampshire Hog
  • NollieNollie Girona, Catalunya, Northen Spain.Posts: 5,025

    Hostafan1 said:
    As a democrat , I'm inclined to think we MUST leave: however ( from my very comfy seat on the fence ) I think a reasonable argument can but made that so much more information is known now which wasn't known at the referendum, and , as such a new vote might be justified.

    Totally agree with the above. My mother is not a well-educated or politically astute woman (sorry mum!) and she believed what was written on the bus and voted out. She now says if she had known then what she knows now, she would never have voted to leave and would now vote to remain if she has another chance.

    Regardless of how you voted, it was the paucity of reasoned debate, factual analysis and exploration of the pros and cons of membership or the various models of non-membership of the EU combined with the promulgation of lies and exaggerations on all sides that made me totally dispair and still does. Cynically, one would say, well what do you expect, that’s party politics for you. However, a tiny kernel of idealism still flutters and sparks within me which, whilst I cherish it, means I am forever fated to be disappointed.
  • pansyfacepansyface PEAK DISTRICT DerbyshirePosts: 18,626
    edited March 2019
    Nollie said:

    Regardless of how you voted, it was the paucity of reasoned debate, factual analysis and exploration of the pros and cons of membership or the various models of non-membership of the EU combined with the promulgation of lies and exaggerations on all sides that made me totally dispair and still does. Cynically, one would say, well what do you expect, that’s party politics for you. 
    Let’s be honest, has Mrs May’s much hated deal ever been spelled out to us, the people who will have to “accept”it?  We know she has a deal. We know it’s not liked by people who have had the opportunity to read it, but have you seen it? Do you know, to give one small example, what the British fishing rights will be in British waters? Once again, we are being asked to swallow a pill without knowing either what is in it or what it will do to us.
    Apophthegm -  a big word for a small thought.
  • Mr. Vine EyeMr. Vine Eye Posts: 1,722
    Why would I vote for another referendum I voted once along with the majority and as yet that vote has not been taken to its democratic conclusion. 

    It was an opinion poll - taken nearly 3 years ago.

    The vote was To Leave or Remain - no one knew what leave was going to look like (still don't) and the ideas that were being spouted by Leave supporters at the time like Johnson, Gove etc. contradicted each other, many suggesting that we wouldn't be leaving the common market - and a lot of these suggestions have proven to be untrue.

    So while you may say that you voted leave, you did not say whether you wanted to leave with any of a number of possible 'deals' or leave with no deal at all.

    It's not just a black and white choice. Hence why no one is happy with how things are looking at the moment.

    A new referendum is valid, based on the fact that there is now a much clearer choice available.

    Although I'd rather parliament just did its job and revoked article 50 on the basis that it has already damaged the country economically and our political standing in the world - that's before we've even left.

    I heard an interview with an MP who said "I would rather be unpopular with my constituents and lose my position in a future election, than vote for something I know will ultimately harm them." Or something to that affect.

    If only they all believed that.

    It's noticeable that Brexiteers are profiteering from the sinking of the country and moving their assets and businesses abroad. Maybe they weren't really that fussed about us after all...
  • DyersEndDyersEnd Posts: 730
     "For example, I heard of a farmer who grew two crops, but the EU insisted that he grew three. God only knows why! There was also a proposal to limit the power of electric kettles to increase their efficiency." 

    Can you show me proof that these things actually happened?  Some of the rubbish I have heard/read have made me very cynical I'm afraid.
  • ObelixxObelixx Vendée, Western FrancePosts: 26,253
    No, they weren't.  EU rules on working hours and conditions and job security are not popular with some employers and nor are all the standards they have introduced hence the departures of the likes of bloody Dyson and co.

    It is clear that the original referendum was badly planned, badly managed and that there was inadequate explanation of the pros and cons for the majority to make an informed decision.  It is also clear that younger people who have since reached voting age are aware of the effects of leaving the EU will have on their choices and opportunities for education, travel and employment.  

    A second referendum, assuming it is properly managed, would fix that and be decisive for both the UK and the EU where other nations have their sections feeling the pinch of austerity and the loss of local power and recognition of local problems.

    If you look at British history from the Norman Conquests to Union with Scotland and the establishment of Northern Ireland after Irish independence, those 3 countries have always needed and been in receipt of subsidies by the English tax payer.   I see the Welsh are now talking of a vote for independence if the English don't match the EU subsidies.   Maybe then the English would be able to afford the EU subsidies to Cornwall and even some railway line updates in the north.


    "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
  • DyersEnd said:
     "For example, I heard of a farmer who grew two crops, but the EU insisted that he grew three. God only knows why! There was also a proposal to limit the power of electric kettles to increase their efficiency." 

    Can you show me proof that these things actually happened?  Some of the rubbish I have heard/read have made me very cynical I'm afraid.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/eu-to-launch-kettle-and-toaster-crackdown-after-brexit-vote2/ 

    https://www.cla.org.uk/three-crop-rule-relaxed-eu# 
  • raisingirlraisingirl East Devon, on the Edge of Exmoor.Posts: 4,723
    What was that I saying about the British print media? Boris Johnson admits now to having basically made up stories about the EU's 'meddling' and ridiculous rules, back when he was a journalist. He used to do it for a laugh. 

    The '3 crop rule' is actually a rule about diversification of arable crops in order to reduce soil erosion and the use of chemical fertilisers. I use crop rotation in my tiny veg patch for exactly the same reasons. It's good practice and the UK voted for it. Last year, the extreme bad weather in N.I and Scotland made it very difficult for some farmers to actually produce 3 viable crops and so exemptions were permitted.

    Reducing the power consumption of small electrical appliances and IT equipment has been ongoing for quite some time. Every new one brought into the regs provokes a load of silly headlines. Ecodesign rules generally regulate efficiency rather than directly limiting power, but quite often the inappropriately high power types are the ones that can't deliver good enough utilisation so are 'banned'. 
    “There is no military solution
    Doesn't always end up as something worse”
  • LiriodendronLiriodendron Scariff, County Clare, IrelandPosts: 6,996
    Thanks, @raisingirl - good to have that explained.

    I can't see the problem with having another vote.  Nobody complains about general elections, in which people are perfectly entitled to change their minds, and frequently do.  Are such elections undemocratic?  Just the opposite, I should say.  I haven't heard a cogent argument against a second referendum; I suspect brexiteers don't want one for fear their view will no longer hold sway. 

    I don't know what the result would be from a second referendum - but either "leave" will be upheld, in which case maybe we'll have a proper plan for doing it without tearing the country to bits in the process, or enough people will have died or changed their minds or become old enough to vote, and we'll stay in.
    "The one who plants trees, knowing that he will never sit in their shade, has at least started to understand the meaning of life."  Rabindranath Tagore
Sign In or Register to comment.