'It'll be carnage': British companies dread a Brexit border breakdown

[RayC 1,919]

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

Swanson? That's even better! 

Err, who? If you mean Swinson, then you've got the wrong party

[7by7 14,308]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

I was disputing your comment that ' the opposition parties voted against May's deal because they believed her deal was wrong' - not answering your strange question.

 

I know why the opposition voted against May's deal because of what they said at the time. Maybe they were lying; but how do you know if they were or not?

 

 How is the question strange?

 

The Brexiteer self contradiction of a Remain Parliament thwarting a Remain Prime Minister is certainly strange; hence the question!

[Scott 16,090]

An inflammatory post has been removed along with reply.   I suggest you self-moderate your posts or there will be no choice but to issue suspensions.   Please, keep it civil. 

 

[vogie 24,521]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

It's probably best that we park this discussion. You are either unable or unwilling to grasp the concepts of accountability and responsibility. I wouldn't presume to know which it is. 

I grasp everything, we have had a referendum, leave won so we are leaving. It is you that cannot understand the simplicities of how democracy works. Blaming others all the time is a remainers 'get out of jail card' 

[Rookiescot 11,534]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I used the example of the UK and Switzerland but referendums occur far less frequently in the UK. I think only 6 years is too soon for a vote on the same question, yes.

 

What I personally agree with does not matter. I am sure that any government would not ask for my individual blessing for any referendum. 

Same question but completely different circumstances. 

Following your logic we should not be having general elections every 5 years. Or indeed even sooner than that when it suits the Conservative party. 

[evadgib 17,468]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Same question but completely different circumstances. 

Following your logic we should not be having general elections every 5 years. Or indeed even sooner than that when it suits the Conservative party. 

Labour and the SNP triggered the last one did they not?

[evadgib 17,468]

9 hours ago, RayC said:

Err, who? If you mean Swinson, then you've got the wrong party

In which case please accept this correction: ()

 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by evadgib

[nauseus 16,115]

10 hours ago, RayC said:

 Were the electorate as a whole (Remainers and Leavers) more informed than MPs when it came to the pros and cons of Brexit? If they were, they shouldn't have been. After all, we elect politicans to make informed decisions on our behalf. 

 

Although we probably disagree about who is responsible, I assume that we agree that the referendum result has caused an enormous divide in UK society? I would contend that if the decision to leave had been made by government, it would not have opened such a schism, although I accept that this is pure conjecture.

 

I think that it's not hard to see that the ratio of "informed" (elected) politicians to those that are ill-informed has been declining for years, although a being "well informed" MP does not necessarily guarantee that an MP will serve the best interests of his voters, anyway. I think MPs are elected if they are seen as the candidates most likely to vote for the interests of individual voters, whether these interests, or policies, are local or national. 

 

I can agree that the referendum result has highlighted a division but I think that had been there for years. I would say that If the government had just decided to leave (with no referendum) then the kickback from remain would have been harder than it has been but that there would have been more justification for it. 

[nauseus 16,115]

4 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Same question but completely different circumstances. 

Following your logic we should not be having general elections every 5 years. Or indeed even sooner than that when it suits the Conservative party. 

 

If you want to highlight completely different circumstances you should start with general elections and referendums. 

[RayC 1,919]

8 hours ago, vogie said:

I grasp everything ....

And now you are omnipotent...

[evadgib 17,468]

More 'getting on with it' from HMG:

Breadth of UK food, drink and innovation set to shine at the 2020 China International Import Expo

Quote

The UK will showcase the best of British at the third China International Import Expo (CIIE), following a record-breaking year of £100 billion in trade between the two nations.

And again:

Finance Ministers Sunak and Sitharaman hold landmark dialogue

 

(Note: I'm unable to shrink the font on this device or inc a quote from the 2nd link)

Edited October 30, 2020 by evadgib

[RayC 1,919]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I think that it's not hard to see that the ratio of "informed" (elected) politicians to those that are ill-informed has been declining for years,

I'm not so sure. I agree that there currently appear to be few stand-out MPs on either side of the Commons, but has it ever been that different? Yes, in the relatively recent past there have been the likes of Robin Cook and Ken Clarke, but they are few and far between. In fairness, it's easy enough for us to put the country to rights on TVF, it's quite another thing to do so in practice.

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

although a being "well informed" MP does not necessarily guarantee that an MP will serve the best interests of his voters, anyway.

I think that it is impossible to have that guarantee although I (prefer to) believe that most MPs act with honesty and integrity.

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I think MPs are elected if they are seen as the candidates most likely to vote for the interests of individual voters, whether these interests, or policies, are local or national. 

I don't understand. This seems to contradict your previous comment?

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I can agree that the referendum result has highlighted a division but I think that had been there for years. I would say that If the government had just decided to leave (with no referendum) then the kickback from remain would have been harder than it has been but that there would have been more justification for it. 

Certainly a possibility and, yes the division has been there for years; however, the problems associated with this division remained (no pun intended!) under the surface: 'Time may be a healer' but the UK is a nation split (almost) down the middle on so many issues nowadays. I'd contend that the Brexit referendum was the catalyst for this exposure of these divisions, hence one reason why I am against referendums. Was/ Is it worth it? A matter of opinion of course.

[Rookiescot 11,534]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

If you want to highlight completely different circumstances you should start with general elections and referendums. 

So you get asked the same question every time you vote in a general election but you think we should not be asking the same question in a referendum after 6 years when the circumstances have completely changed.

Yeah ok. I suppose inconsistency is a Brexiteer constant. 

[nauseus 16,115]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So you get asked the same question every time you vote in a general election but you think we should not be asking the same question in a referendum after 6 years when the circumstances have completely changed.

Yeah ok. I suppose inconsistency is a Brexiteer constant. 

 

Referendums suit single issues. General elections do not. That's why the word 'general' is included. 

[Rookiescot 11,534]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Referendums suit single issues. General elections do not. That's why the word 'general' is included. 

They are both campaigns dealing with many arguments for and against.

You are splitting hairs again. You either agree with democracy or you dont.