211–220 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree completely. An ambiguous referendum that gave no guidance. An unelected PM who has taken it upon herself to define the most egregious future path. The only ethical stance is to set out definite terms (which I guess she is now doing) and hold a general election (which I am 100% sure she will not).
> An unelected PM She was elected by her party, just like Cameron was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes there was a vote. But it was a vote on a very ambiguous set of terms that was also an advisory vote, not a binding vote. This vote has been taken by an unelected Prime Minister serving out a term won on a mandate to protect UK interests in Europe. The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
Which election had "I want David Cameron as PM" on the ballot? I only remember having the option to vote in parliamentary elections for my local MP.
Sounds a bit like the EU, but we all know[1] how that's a completely different out-of-control unelected bureaucracy[2].
[1] Have been told
[2] The EU parliament doesn't count, for vague reasons that change every time you hear it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe if the UK could have chosen to control immigration from A8 countries, Brexit would have never happened. I don't think it would have mattered if the UK actually did restrict immigration or not, it's more about not having the power to choose to restrict it.
Maybe, and not necessarily a direct control For example, not giving unemployment benefits for those that just had arrived (though it seems this applies to all kinds of immigration)
Is/was that really the case in the UK? From day one? I hop on a plane today, take a taxi from the airport to the unemployment office, get in line, and I'll have unemployment benefits paid to me starting in February?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is funny because if the EU is to survive, immigration controls will have to be put in place. Many countries are already demanding to control their borders. So when that happens, the UK will feel stupid for leaving, I suppose. They could've just waited.
Many countries are "demanding" that, because it's probably the easiest way for politicians to get more popular (right after "being tough on crime"). There's literally no need for inner border checks, as long as the outer borders are secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will persuade many multinational corporations to stay and will even attract new ones No. To have access to the EU single market, your company MUST have its main base of operation be in a EU member state.
Leaving the single market doesn't mean no access at all, it's just tariffs and some bureaucracy. Not that I support all this, but the Govt. seems to be hoping that becoming a tax haven will compensate all that.
The UK really needs to sort out it's internal policies and spread the wealth around the country and the not just keep pushing "the London agenda"
All because people think 3.5% of the population (immigrants) is 20% of the population. No one - no matter what they may claim today - voted for this. At the time they were saying "we'll get access to the single market because we're special". I'm completely lost and hopeless. We've torn up everything that's good because it's difficult, and we're exchanging it for everything that's bad, and will be a thousand times mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the EU we have extremely different countries. What is exactly your point?
And the EU will either end up with a bunch of very different people unhappy about being forced into the same polity, or it will end. America proves you cannot have Democratic sovereign states tied together by an overarching union. America is a lot more homogenous than Europe and even then it's intensely straining here. Neither Alabama nor Massachusetts are happy being forced into the same polity with each other--voti…
In the EU we have some countries with Scandinavian-style welfare states, and some without it. And still the EU exists, which seems impossible according to your comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes there was a vote. But it was a vote on a very ambiguous set of terms that was also an advisory vote, not a binding vote. This vote has been taken by an unelected Prime Minister serving out a term won on a mandate to protect UK interests in Europe. The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
You can twist and turn it any way you like, there WAS a vote, it was democratic, and you just keep complaining and whining about democracy when you don't like the outcome. The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate. If that is so go to the courts. Otherwise whatever you say is just an empty bag of hot air. Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate…
They did. The court sided against the government. They appealed to the supreme court, whom we are currently awaiting a judgement from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in the UK haven't quite gotten over that whole global empire thing. Every now and then they make documentaries about how they brought civilization to India or something.
Source, or is that just some generalised opinion based on simplistic historical foreign parody?
I find her language very problematic. I didn't vote to leave—so when she claims to be speaking for the British people, I'm left wondering how my voice can count. I'm part of 48% of 72.2%; a lot of people are likely to share my concern. We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the country didn't vote for her. I don't want th…
We need a second referendum on what is finally agreed with the EU. The people are allowed to change their mind.