+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Much like what happened when the original vote from the seventies was overturned then. It amuses me when Leavers say democracy should be respected following the referendum, when there had been politicians, business people and men and women working in the media who had been banging on about having another vote on Europe for the last three or four decades - Nigel Farage even said that he would campaign for another vote if the outcome in 2016 had been 52/48 in favour of remain.
This is one of the blatant hypocrisies of modern day UK politics and the public isn't switched on enough to see through it.
The same people who criticise high senior level public sector pay, defend high private sector pay even when the companies in question rely primarily on public contracts.
The kind of crappy monopolising privatisation that our government's appear to love blurs these lines to the point where they are impossible to distinguish
University pay is a great example, it is seen as public money (and draws a chorus of gasps when it is published) even though they are effectively run as businesses in a competitive marketplace, the kicker however is that if the kids don't go on to get good jobs Joe public covers their fee loan + some healthy interest.
I can't speak for all people who voted remain but a vote on the deal makes sense to me given how turbulent the negotiations have been compared to how the public were told they would be.
A second vote also puts to bed your final point, if people don't vote after knowing how close it is then they clearly dont care. I would imagine there were remainers and leavers who were convinced not to vote by polls that suggested a clear win for remain so a second vote would give a clearer picture all round.
I would then be in favour of following the public's choice. At the moment we don't know what the public's choice is. It certainly isn't chequers, I don't think people want a no deal (although I would prefer that to a half way solution like chequers).
The main logical criticism of a 2nd vote is really simple but not somewhere Brexiteers want to go because it smears then as much as anyone else. The public is still horribly uninformed about brexit, they don't know what any of the outcomes entail. They don't even know what no deal means ( and we would obviously need a clear picture of what remaining means too for the vote to be legitimate)
Popcorn time.
https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak...70368005226496
Never mind the salaries the pension liability is my concern ,which goes way beyond salary earnings
It was one of the very first discussion points placed on the table in front of the UK , not Trade, not the Irish Border,Free movement, nope what will the UK contribute as part of their CONTINUED pension liability .
I just can't imagine ,certain political minded folk accepting this , if it was a fat cat banker ,rich old Tory , some old rich capitalist ( and rightly so )
We should be even handed with all excessive spends ,especially when its tax payers money ,funding them .
My battle bus would have shown the incredible liability of wages , buildings , pensions to the ordinary tax payers in Europe :
32 thousand people plus expenses ( I bet not many on minimum wage)
EU's total pension liabilities are £35.8 billion
€1.756 billion euros per year running costs .
Now there's a real socialist battle ground argument to be had , and one I'd enjoy AND SUPPORT ???
I read today that the Royal college of Nursing, British medical association and the Royal College of Midwives are against Brexit.
Then you have Nigel Farage, Arron Banks Boris Johnson and Liam Fox.
Says it all for me.
Are you annoyed about our cut or the absolute level?
If it is the former then surely this is just a sum and part of the negotiation and if it is the latter then you should have raised it years ago...
Did you think it would be cheap to run a supranational organisation that does our bidding around the world???
I know it might sound strange but the the amount of financial liability we agree to pay the EU is pretty minor in terms of the issues we have in leaving.
Once we triggered Article 50 to leave the EU within two years we seemed a little surprised about what happened next. Some thought that this would trigger the negotiation of the easiest trade deal with EU in history.
Unfortunately the EU had different ideas. They proposed and we bowed down to a sequential negotiation where we first agreed a withdrawal agreement before moving to an agreement of the future relationship once we have left on 29th March 2019.
The withdrawal agreement needed to cover at the least three key points around the status of citizens post withdrawal, the treatment of the Irish Border and the net financial contributions the UK would make for its assets and liabilities.
In December 2017 Theresa May came back from Brussels in triumph that she had agreed with an EU on these points allowing discussions around future trade relationships to commence. The agreement included the level of financial commitment we would make, INCLUDING PENSIONS, and a backstop on the island of Ireland.
Since then the UK recognised that it needed more time to negotiate its future relationship and the EU agreed a transitional period where from March 2019 for 21 months to 31st December 2020 where for all intents and purposes we will take EU rules, have no say in them and pay more for the privilege.
We finally presented the Chequers proposal that has been rejected by most sides within the UK and without. The aim now in the time remaining of Article 50 to conclude the withdrawal agreement, including the Irish backstop which since we signed up to in December 2017 has been in some dispute and enter into a political agreement on our future relationship that all can be agreed by the Conservative Party, Parliament the EU its 27 remaining member states and its Parliament before we officially leave on 29th March.
If we don't we leave with no deal with all that entails. The good this from your point of view is that is that if that happens then we don't pay any contributions for pension provisions. Sounds great when you put like that I guess!!
'No deal is better than a bad deal' appears to have become 'come on guys please, this bad deal is better than no deal'.
Rhetoric meets reality.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/a...mpression=true
This article sums up May's issues quite nicely
It doesnt matter what May delivers or agrees as her opponent's will not under any circumstance support or vote for any deal , as their real goal is power , bugger the people , or the effects of Brexit upon them ,I'm still waiting to see there detailed alternative plan .
We are just used as a political football.
We were used as a political foootball when call me Dave called an unnecessary referendum as he was scared of Nigel and the Daily Mail and wanted to prove what a tough guy he was
Before buggering off.
So I think some of your anger should be thrown in the way of the old Etonian pig shagger
May on the edge.
Laura Kuenssberg
Verified account
@bbclaurak
Follow Follow @bbclaurak
More
Senior tory tells me Brexiteer anger so high that seems likely there will be a call for no confidence vote tomorrow - letters going in -
10:09 AM - 14 Nov 2018 https://twitter.com/bbclaurak
Great summary, the only incey wincey hole in it is that the majority of the groups openly opposed to this deal already have power - remainer tories, erg, dup, scottish tories
This isn't about power. It is about taking this supposed mandate and delivering something that absolutely nobody wanted in the name of compromise. She was told at the very start that it was stupid, she told us to trust her because she is a fantastic negotiator and now 2.5 years after the vote she is in a dark room trying to convince even her feckin pals to support it. Tomorrow once she has threatened them into submission she will have to start working on the people who don't like her.
I think this is what Bone was alluding to
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/1...r-theresa-may/
And there for me personally lies the problem, for Labour .
Yvette Cooper would romp into power ,however like a lot of good Labour MP's they have been marginalised and viewed as a sort of centralist 'who may have smiled at Blair at some point in thier lives, therefore becoming not required as leaders or front bench politicians, who should be tearing these Tories apart ,she is one of many good socialists , lost to us , and unfortunately stopping Labour becoming a powerful force .