| Sign it... on 21:41 - Mar 24 with 2942 views | rochdale_ranger |
| Sign it... on 18:25 - Mar 24 by Ninco |
I think a lot of the people who voted leave didn't fully understand what the were voting for and just assumed that we would stop immigration, and Hey Presto, there would suddenly be loads of jobs for every British person, but it was never going to work like that.
When people say 'they are taking our jobs', anyone can study for 7 years to become a Doctor, so if immigrants are prepared to study and you aren't, you can't really complain that they are taking your job as you never had the qualifications for it. Someone has to keep our NHS going.
Also, you give up a third of your wages in tax and National Insurance. Without immigration, the Government will not have the funds to run the country. Where do you think they will get that extra money from? They will just increase tax for everyone else. It will get to the stage where you pay so much tax that you can barely afford to live. The High Street will collapse as nobody will have the money to spend in shops, so more people will be out of work.
They don't do immigration for fun, they do it because we need it. Enjoy your holidays in a foreign country, and I hope that the people you don't want in our country make you feel welcome as you spend your stay in theirs. |
nobody has slagged immigrants off once or used them as their reasoning for voting leave. Painting leave voters out as racists is a tired old trope. |  | |  |
| Sign it... (n/t) on 22:22 - Mar 24 with 2867 views | kiwidale |
| Sign it... on 21:17 - Mar 24 by roccydaleian |
Aw bless you just can't help yourself. I suppose being a snowflake is better than say being a robbing cowboy builder for example. I suppose it's not nice planning to take merchandise of business's and do one without paying them. Not that I know anyone like that, mind. |
[Post edited 25 Mar 2019 5:30]
|  |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Sign it... on 08:51 - Mar 25 with 2704 views | MoonyDale |
| Sign it... on 19:11 - Mar 24 by roccydaleian |
And proved right by your fabulous research, that the EU lose taxpayers money for fun.
Now as for being a thick bastard, that's quite funny, have you ever tried to be a stand up comedian?
By the way, before you left our shores, how did your "master plan" go? Did you manage to fleece anyone? |
" The EU lose UK tax payers money for fun " 2 words for you........Chris Grayling. |  |
| |
| Sign it... on 09:47 - Mar 25 with 2664 views | sweetcorn |
Well i’ve certainly enjoyed reading through this, especially now it’s turned into mud-slinging, keep up the good work. |  |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| Sign it... on 10:02 - Mar 25 with 2638 views | roccydaleian |
| Sign it... on 08:51 - Mar 25 by MoonyDale |
" The EU lose UK tax payers money for fun " 2 words for you........Chris Grayling. |
I agree, he's just as incompetent as the EU. |  | | |
| Sign it... on 10:04 - Mar 25 with 2633 views | roccydaleian |
| Sign it... on 09:47 - Mar 25 by sweetcorn |
Well i’ve certainly enjoyed reading through this, especially now it’s turned into mud-slinging, keep up the good work. |
Aye, 'cause you never call anyone do you. | | | |
| Sign it... on 10:59 - Mar 25 with 2576 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sign it... on 20:52 - Mar 24 by steofthedale |
The main difference is that the " anomolies" in the EU are by design and inherent in their structure and procedures.
Not much nuance in "leave " or "remain". Nor, (with almost 500 MPs having triggered article 50), leaving with an agreement or without.
There are many Republicans in the UK. To my knowledge none are on trial for treason. |
I don't think the UK voting system is haphazard or unplanned - FPTP is designed to exclude minority Parties (like UKIP) and works exactly as intended.
You're right - trying to compress the greatest constitutional, economic and social change in 75 years into a simplistic, binary referendum was doomed to failure, misunderstanding, misrepresentation and anger from the off.
There are many good reasons for Brexit but claiming our democracy is superior clearly isn't one. It's our democracy's anomalies which caused the problem - mixing up direct democracy in a representative Parliamentary system. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sign it... on 12:40 - Mar 25 with 2529 views | sweetcorn |
| Sign it... on 10:04 - Mar 25 by roccydaleian |
Aye, 'cause you never call anyone do you. |
You're coming at me like I've criticised it, quite the opposite, I'm enjoying the read. You need to calm down a little.
Can see you sat on your phone sharing multiple LEAVE MEANS LEAVE posts on facebook per hour, which is almost as entertaining as this thread. | |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| Sign it... on 13:42 - Mar 25 with 2486 views | steofthedale |
| Sign it... on 10:59 - Mar 25 by tony_roch975 |
I don't think the UK voting system is haphazard or unplanned - FPTP is designed to exclude minority Parties (like UKIP) and works exactly as intended.
You're right - trying to compress the greatest constitutional, economic and social change in 75 years into a simplistic, binary referendum was doomed to failure, misunderstanding, misrepresentation and anger from the off.
There are many good reasons for Brexit but claiming our democracy is superior clearly isn't one. It's our democracy's anomalies which caused the problem - mixing up direct democracy in a representative Parliamentary system. |
1. It is not a claim that our democracy is superior, just that the EU is by design and its very nature undemocratic with the unelected and unaccountable European Commission dictating policy.
2. For all of their shortcomings, Chris Grayling, Anna Soubry, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Corbyn or any other MP will be accountable to their electorate in due course. The political parties'performance in the approaching local elections are also likely to be influenced by recent events in Westminster. Who knows what would happen were the UK required to field MEP candidates in May?
Sooner rather than later the voters will hold British politicians to account.
When will Barnier, Tusk, Junker be held to account and by whom?
3. The intention of the referendum was to decide once and for all the UK's position with regard to the EU.
A majority in Parliament voted for a referendum.
A majority in Parliament stood on a manifesto to uphold the referendum result.
Almost 500 MPs voted to trigger article 50 and pass in to law leaving with or without an "agreement".
A majority in Parliament have rejected the "agreement" twice.
MPs should now accept the consequences of their decisions and act accordingly.
Their choice is simple......which is the better option, the "agreement" or "no deal"?
4. In this instance, direct democracy should take precedence over the representatives personal opinions and views.
If they cannot resolve the impasse, by all means allow the public to decide in a referendum between the "agreement" or "no deal" as enshrined in law by Parliaments support for enacting article 50. | |
| |
| Sign it... on 15:53 - Mar 25 with 2429 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sign it... on 13:42 - Mar 25 by steofthedale |
1. It is not a claim that our democracy is superior, just that the EU is by design and its very nature undemocratic with the unelected and unaccountable European Commission dictating policy.
2. For all of their shortcomings, Chris Grayling, Anna Soubry, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Corbyn or any other MP will be accountable to their electorate in due course. The political parties'performance in the approaching local elections are also likely to be influenced by recent events in Westminster. Who knows what would happen were the UK required to field MEP candidates in May?
Sooner rather than later the voters will hold British politicians to account.
When will Barnier, Tusk, Junker be held to account and by whom?
3. The intention of the referendum was to decide once and for all the UK's position with regard to the EU.
A majority in Parliament voted for a referendum.
A majority in Parliament stood on a manifesto to uphold the referendum result.
Almost 500 MPs voted to trigger article 50 and pass in to law leaving with or without an "agreement".
A majority in Parliament have rejected the "agreement" twice.
MPs should now accept the consequences of their decisions and act accordingly.
Their choice is simple......which is the better option, the "agreement" or "no deal"?
4. In this instance, direct democracy should take precedence over the representatives personal opinions and views.
If they cannot resolve the impasse, by all means allow the public to decide in a referendum between the "agreement" or "no deal" as enshrined in law by Parliaments support for enacting article 50. |
OK then (since you share May's stubbornness)
1. I have just spent 6 posts demonstrating where the UK system is by design and its very nature undemocratic (FPTP), unelected (Head of State) or unnacountable (Civil Service). By all means say 'both have democratic deficits but I just don't like the EEC system' but you haven't demonstrated it's more undemocratic than the UK one.
2. So will all MEPs and members of the Council of Ministers. Indeed no-one knows how such an election would pan out. When will the Queen be held to account and by whom?
3. The intention of the referendum was to stop the erosion of Tory votes by UKIP. Under our system you can't bind a future Parliament ('once and for all') so the day after we've left Parliament would be perfectly entitled to re-join. Agree about your first 3 facts. A majority in Parliament have rejected AN agreement twice - there was no THE agreement on the ballot so there are numerous possible agreements.
4. Here's the nub - perfectly valid position to want Direct Democracy but you can't then have Representative Democracy so Parliament will have to be abolished. You can't be half pregnant! I prefer Parliamentary democracy so I don't want any more referendums tho I'd agree there's a strong moral case for including 'No deal' if you do hold one. | |
| |
| Sign it... on 16:51 - Mar 25 with 2374 views | joecooke |
I dont know the chaps previous but getting 28 days in jail seems quite harsh. [Post edited 25 Mar 2019 16:59]
|  |
| |
| Sign it... on 17:06 - Mar 25 with 2355 views | rochdale_ranger |
| Sign it... on 16:51 - Mar 25 by joecooke |
I dont know the chaps previous but getting 28 days in jail seems quite harsh. [Post edited 25 Mar 2019 16:59]
|
Aye it’s a bit Orwellian jailing someone for a childish prank. Especially when we hear the jails are all full and resources are at stretching point. | | | |
| Sign it... on 21:19 - Mar 25 with 2256 views | steofthedale |
| Sign it... on 15:53 - Mar 25 by tony_roch975 |
OK then (since you share May's stubbornness)
1. I have just spent 6 posts demonstrating where the UK system is by design and its very nature undemocratic (FPTP), unelected (Head of State) or unnacountable (Civil Service). By all means say 'both have democratic deficits but I just don't like the EEC system' but you haven't demonstrated it's more undemocratic than the UK one.
2. So will all MEPs and members of the Council of Ministers. Indeed no-one knows how such an election would pan out. When will the Queen be held to account and by whom?
3. The intention of the referendum was to stop the erosion of Tory votes by UKIP. Under our system you can't bind a future Parliament ('once and for all') so the day after we've left Parliament would be perfectly entitled to re-join. Agree about your first 3 facts. A majority in Parliament have rejected AN agreement twice - there was no THE agreement on the ballot so there are numerous possible agreements.
4. Here's the nub - perfectly valid position to want Direct Democracy but you can't then have Representative Democracy so Parliament will have to be abolished. You can't be half pregnant! I prefer Parliamentary democracy so I don't want any more referendums tho I'd agree there's a strong moral case for including 'No deal' if you do hold one. |
Stubborness? Kettle......pot.....sooty face.
1. Whilst there may be debate regarding the fairness of FPTP vs a form of PR, it is nevertheless an excepted democratic process. The UK head of state is a titular role and has little other than a symbolic function. The Civil service may advise but cannot legislate.
The EU has a sham democracy with essentially symbolic MEPs and an unaccountable Commission of civil servants who are the means by which the Union is governed.
You may consider this democratic. I do not.
2. So who exactly elected Barnier, Junker, Tusk et al to their non-symbolic policy making roles?
When will the monarchy be held to account? Whenever the people so determine. Whilst Republicanism remains a minority view it's unlikely...that's democracy for you.
3. The erosion of sovereignty by successive EU treaties generated increasing eurosceptism in the UK. Whilst other nations were given referenda this was denied to the British public. Whenever countries had the temerity to make the "wrong" choice they were required to vote again.....truly democratic. A UK referendum was long overdue.
I accept your point regarding binding future Parliaments. However this Parliament, with few exceptions, stood on the premise of honouring the vote to leave. They placed in law a date by which this would occur, with or without an agreement. The statute is still lawful. They have no agreement. It is time to honour the vote. The ballot was to leave by 29 March. This includes quitting the EU institutions, Custom Union and Single Market as clearly stated time and time again during the campaign. The EU categorically states there is no other deal possible......
4. The nub is that Parliament abrogated their responsibility and determined to have a Referendum. It was made clear the outcome would be enacted. Labour and Conservative manifestos pledged likewise. There would be no conflict if MPs acted with honesty and integrity, kept the promises made to the electorate and fulfilled the statute they passed into law.
In contrast, most of the last 2 years have proven an exemplar on how to frustrate what is often cited as the largest democratic vote in our history. The fact that the minority "remain" opinion is still seen as an option is little short of scandalous.
I have no issue with political parties campaigning to rejoin the EU once the UK has left. I look forward to reading it in their manifestos at the next General Election. However to do so prior to actually leaving is duplicitous in the extreme. | |
| |
| Sign it... on 21:50 - Mar 25 with 2224 views | mingthemerciless |
| Sign it... on 17:06 - Mar 25 by rochdale_ranger |
Aye it’s a bit Orwellian jailing someone for a childish prank. Especially when we hear the jails are all full and resources are at stretching point. |
Maybe a month in jail will help him grow up. | | | |
| Sign it... on 05:11 - Mar 26 with 2116 views | foreverhopefulDale |
Must be a thug and bully attacking a pensioner. |  |
| |
| Sign it... on 06:13 - Mar 26 with 2089 views | roccydaleian |
| Sign it... on 21:50 - Mar 25 by mingthemerciless |
Maybe a month in jail will help him grow up. |
As much as I don't like Jezzer, I absolutely detest cowardly bastards who attack people with eggs/paint/flour etc. But with prisons full to bursting point, a couple of months community service would have been a better sentence imo. | | | |
| Sign it... on 08:13 - Mar 26 with 2043 views | judd |
| Sign it... on 06:13 - Mar 26 by roccydaleian |
As much as I don't like Jezzer, I absolutely detest cowardly bastards who attack people with eggs/paint/flour etc. But with prisons full to bursting point, a couple of months community service would have been a better sentence imo. |
Eggsactly |  |
| |
| Sign it... on 08:47 - Mar 26 with 2019 views | kel |
| Sign it... on 08:13 - Mar 26 by judd |
Eggsactly |
Eggscally tbf |  | | |
| Sign it... on 09:04 - Mar 26 with 2006 views | MoonyDale |
| Sign it... on 21:19 - Mar 25 by steofthedale |
Stubborness? Kettle......pot.....sooty face.
1. Whilst there may be debate regarding the fairness of FPTP vs a form of PR, it is nevertheless an excepted democratic process. The UK head of state is a titular role and has little other than a symbolic function. The Civil service may advise but cannot legislate.
The EU has a sham democracy with essentially symbolic MEPs and an unaccountable Commission of civil servants who are the means by which the Union is governed.
You may consider this democratic. I do not.
2. So who exactly elected Barnier, Junker, Tusk et al to their non-symbolic policy making roles?
When will the monarchy be held to account? Whenever the people so determine. Whilst Republicanism remains a minority view it's unlikely...that's democracy for you.
3. The erosion of sovereignty by successive EU treaties generated increasing eurosceptism in the UK. Whilst other nations were given referenda this was denied to the British public. Whenever countries had the temerity to make the "wrong" choice they were required to vote again.....truly democratic. A UK referendum was long overdue.
I accept your point regarding binding future Parliaments. However this Parliament, with few exceptions, stood on the premise of honouring the vote to leave. They placed in law a date by which this would occur, with or without an agreement. The statute is still lawful. They have no agreement. It is time to honour the vote. The ballot was to leave by 29 March. This includes quitting the EU institutions, Custom Union and Single Market as clearly stated time and time again during the campaign. The EU categorically states there is no other deal possible......
4. The nub is that Parliament abrogated their responsibility and determined to have a Referendum. It was made clear the outcome would be enacted. Labour and Conservative manifestos pledged likewise. There would be no conflict if MPs acted with honesty and integrity, kept the promises made to the electorate and fulfilled the statute they passed into law.
In contrast, most of the last 2 years have proven an exemplar on how to frustrate what is often cited as the largest democratic vote in our history. The fact that the minority "remain" opinion is still seen as an option is little short of scandalous.
I have no issue with political parties campaigning to rejoin the EU once the UK has left. I look forward to reading it in their manifestos at the next General Election. However to do so prior to actually leaving is duplicitous in the extreme. |
Sorry but why does the ref result forbid debate on remaining? How arrogant is that position? I usually don't get involved in political stuff on here as it is all to easy for it to get heated and abusive, I will however leave this thread with this........
If a democracy cannot change it's mind it ceases to be a democracy....D Davis..
In a 52/48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.....N Farage
We could have two referendums, as it happens it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the negotiation is completed.....J R Mogg.
If you hear a thud, that's me resting my case.... | |
| |
| Sign it... on 10:46 - Mar 26 with 1934 views | steofthedale |
| Sign it... on 09:04 - Mar 26 by MoonyDale |
Sorry but why does the ref result forbid debate on remaining? How arrogant is that position? I usually don't get involved in political stuff on here as it is all to easy for it to get heated and abusive, I will however leave this thread with this........
If a democracy cannot change it's mind it ceases to be a democracy....D Davis..
In a 52/48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.....N Farage
We could have two referendums, as it happens it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the negotiation is completed.....J R Mogg.
If you hear a thud, that's me resting my case.... |
Dale lost in the FA cup to Portsmouth. It was a deflected free kick in added time; a marginal decision; a bitter pill to swallow. Aggrieved as many felt however, they cannot now campaign to be in the semifinals.
Had the result been reversed can anyone imagine "leave" getting a further opportunity within a generation?
"Remain" lost the referendum. Frustrating a democratic decision should not be rewarded by a second opportunity 3 years later having deliberately chosen not to implement the expressed choice of the country.
Therein lies chaos.
By all means have a second referendum. Whatever "leave agreement" the politicians can cobble together v "no deal".
[Post edited 26 Mar 2019 11:00]
| |
| |
| Sign it... on 11:47 - Mar 26 with 1900 views | aleanddale |
A second referendum with no legally binding outcome is bunkum.
David Cameron thought remain was a shoe in hence the referendum in the first place. What a can of worms this has generated.
Without doubt there is a higher authority pulling some strings here and if they ( the government ) could wriggle out Brexit they would.
Chaos will follow whatever in the next few weeks but as it stands more twists and turns and squirming by the government who I suspect would like to try and revoke article 50 completely. | | | |
| Sign it... on 12:28 - Mar 26 with 1864 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sign it... on 21:19 - Mar 25 by steofthedale |
Stubborness? Kettle......pot.....sooty face.
1. Whilst there may be debate regarding the fairness of FPTP vs a form of PR, it is nevertheless an excepted democratic process. The UK head of state is a titular role and has little other than a symbolic function. The Civil service may advise but cannot legislate.
The EU has a sham democracy with essentially symbolic MEPs and an unaccountable Commission of civil servants who are the means by which the Union is governed.
You may consider this democratic. I do not.
2. So who exactly elected Barnier, Junker, Tusk et al to their non-symbolic policy making roles?
When will the monarchy be held to account? Whenever the people so determine. Whilst Republicanism remains a minority view it's unlikely...that's democracy for you.
3. The erosion of sovereignty by successive EU treaties generated increasing eurosceptism in the UK. Whilst other nations were given referenda this was denied to the British public. Whenever countries had the temerity to make the "wrong" choice they were required to vote again.....truly democratic. A UK referendum was long overdue.
I accept your point regarding binding future Parliaments. However this Parliament, with few exceptions, stood on the premise of honouring the vote to leave. They placed in law a date by which this would occur, with or without an agreement. The statute is still lawful. They have no agreement. It is time to honour the vote. The ballot was to leave by 29 March. This includes quitting the EU institutions, Custom Union and Single Market as clearly stated time and time again during the campaign. The EU categorically states there is no other deal possible......
4. The nub is that Parliament abrogated their responsibility and determined to have a Referendum. It was made clear the outcome would be enacted. Labour and Conservative manifestos pledged likewise. There would be no conflict if MPs acted with honesty and integrity, kept the promises made to the electorate and fulfilled the statute they passed into law.
In contrast, most of the last 2 years have proven an exemplar on how to frustrate what is often cited as the largest democratic vote in our history. The fact that the minority "remain" opinion is still seen as an option is little short of scandalous.
I have no issue with political parties campaigning to rejoin the EU once the UK has left. I look forward to reading it in their manifestos at the next General Election. However to do so prior to actually leaving is duplicitous in the extreme. |
Both EU & UK have accepted (sic) processes which are nonetheless unfair /undemocratic (unelected EU Commission/UK Head of State etc). The EU is governed by the Council of Ministers with MEPs & Commission able to take some decisions. The UK civil servant who sanctions your UC is not making laws but does have power over you & no-one elected him/her. Exactly - the Commission exists because the people haven't determined otherwise - that's democracy for you.
I agree, many perceptions of loss fuelled euroscepticism (our world dominance, sovereignty, heavy manufacturing & respect for manual labour; 'conservative' social values, local decision-making, small scale and slow change, being heard, culture, respect for expertise etc).
and, as it happens, I agree that the Tory Government (in order to stop the erosion of Tory votes by UKIP), with the agreement of the other main parties, having run a single, simple majority, binary and binding referendum (the worst of all kinds), the decision should be honoured.
Democracy means implementing the will of the majority however wrong they might be.
But both governance systems have unfair, undemocratic elements so that is still not justification for voting leave. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
