+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I know that the majority of MPs are/were remainers, but what evidence is there to suggest that there is a majority in Parliament who want to hijack Brexit so we can stay in the EU? I know the Labour party abstained thereby distorting the figures, but the vote for a second Referendum was defeated by a margin on a par with those by which May's deal has twice been defeated.
All the evidence so far suggests that MPs are decisively against May's deal, but it doesn't follow that they are because they don't want Brexit under any circumstances. The EU has given Parliament the opportunity to come up with an alternative Brexit arrangement if May's deal is defeated for a third time and if that happens and Parliament is still tying itself up in knots come 12 April because it cannot agree on anything, then I would agree that you would have to question the motivation of many who sit in the House of Commons, but I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for now at least.
It’s an angle because we have sovereignty and the last few months had proved that.
You’re just parroting all the rubbish the murdoch media have fed you, you’ve been completely done.
No one doesn’t want sovereignty the point is we have it and it’s being used as an angle to get votes from people who won’t look past a headline.
I’m sorry mate but this is like Im reading a direct propaganda output from the right wing press.
We have sovereignty and always have, why do you think we aren’t in the Euro? Why do you think our parliament has been able to do what it’s done in the last few months.
So the only benefit you’ve been able to highlight is something we already have.
Obviously democracy and sovereignty is important, no one is voting that away, but the point is we already have it and it’s clear to see from the way our government has operated for the last 20 years.
It's so easy to attack what people perceive as the elite members of society but some of us are just workers ants who do not influence the economy and I, for one, do put a bit of store in statements made from bodies such as the CBI, which states:
"The impacts of a no deal are vast and will impact every region and nation of the UK. From the South West of England, to the North East of Scotland, businesses are telling us a no deal would be a disaster for the UK economy, for businesses and for individual livelihoods."
Happy to read any other statements for and against, of course (and there will be statements against). We need more than knee-jerk prejudices, sweeping statements and anecdotes to inform us if we are open-minded people. The economy cannot be sustained by slogans.
Croesy, there are times when I think you're reading my mind.
Brexit hasn't been instigated by the average citizen, it hasn't been instigated to benefit the average citizen, it's all about how those with money can make even more money. Following the last recession many people are only just about getting back to their feet, even a light but sustained negative impact on the economy will result in many people losing their jobs, their business, their properties, this will then allow those with the means to buy up even more land, property, and businesses on the cheap. The knock on effect, with respect to workers, is that we will see an increase in things like zero hours contracts, a decrease in the minimum wage, and a decrease in workers rights - people will be desperate to do any work for minimum wage to try to keep themselves and their families fed and with a roof over their heads. We will head back to feudalism and serfdom. I would hazard a bet that Jacob Rees-Mogg would like to see the return of workhouses as well.
A reminder:
DEMOCRACY
Breaking the law in a referendum
Refusing to allow Parliament a say
Lying to Parliament
Trying to turn people against MPs
Insisting on a 3-year old result based on lies that no longer holds a majority
NOT DEMOCRACY
Allowing people to vote on their future
From David Schneider on twitter.com
The Lancet has published a paper using the available legal and political texts on four Brexit scenarios to access their likely impact on our health service. "All forms of Brexit involve negative consequences for the UK's leadership and governance of health, in both Europe and globally, with questions about the ability of parliament and other stakeholders to scrutinise and oversee government actions."
'However, by far the worst option would be a No-Deal Brexit. The Withdrawal Agreement is likely to have many adverse consequences but will also allow much to remain as it is until December, 2020. The impact of the backstop is likely to be uneven, effectively enabling continuity in some areas (in particular for medical products, vaccines, and technology), but producing a negative impact in most other areas." The B.M.A. has also warned that a no-deal would be potentially catastrophic.
The cost of Brexit has already hit the U.K. economy to the tune of £40 billion pounds (and rising). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has warned that leaving with no deal would plunge the economy into recession.
But we've had enough of experts, haven't we? Why should we listen to specialists in the field of health care and economics? So many people on social media give such cogent, coherent and well-informed reasons to crash out. Where is the evidence to convince us that leaving would be an all singing all dancing wonderful experience.
I was against having a referendum in the first place. My view has always been if you have got issues with someone you are better of arguing constructively rather than stomping off in a rage.
I also agree with the point made above that Brexit suits certain people, certain fund managers who have already made a shit load of money on it already. Does anyone recall Farage'so concession speech around 12am on Brexit night. It was very strange as results were already starting to trickle in suggesting Brexit may be a lot closer than thought.That simple statement made certain people loads of dosh within minutes.
Sometimes you have to save people from themselves.
The UK is skint.
£2 trillion national debt,
The last banking crisis cost the UK taxpayer £27 billion.
A run on the banks the morning after a no deal would cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot more.
the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Well put. The problem is it’s been sold to the average citizen as a benefit and you can’t really blame people for believing it.
The people who voted for it will be the hardest hit and it’s a disgrace that farage etc won’t just no be accountable but will be stinking rich because of it.
7 pages in and the only benefit anyone has given is something we already have and people have spent all year moaning at parliament because of.
People voted for sovereignty and are now crying about parliament because of it.
2.94 million signatories. Government can "consider" the petition and then just ignore it, if it so desires. It will be interesting to see what Bercow does in terms of MV3 and whether the petition is effective in any way.
Reminds me of the end of LOTR3..."we're going, were on our way, hang on a minute, yes we are going" 30 minutes later. Only in this case It's more like 3 years.
Far be it for me to back either side in this debate Croesy but the benefit they claimed was the UK state paid more into the EU than it got back therefore the UK state would be better off out and keeping that money.
As a Welsh boyo I recognise what is good for the UK state is not always good for Wales and likewise what is good for Wales is not always good for the UK state.
Wales was a net beneficiary of the EU but apparently the opposite was true of UK plc [according to leavers] therefore for Wales to benefit the UK state needs to give a portion of the money it used to give the EU to Wales to make Wales better off within the UK minus the EU than what we were in the UK but within the EU.
Of course everyone knows that the UK Government will not make up the shortfall of lost Welsh EU money, in a properly functioning state we should get the money as a proper functioning state would divert funds and resources to parts of its state that needs it, but London and the South East get everything in the UK and even just looking at Wales Cardiff and the South East get everything within Wales such is the crazy for City states.
But putting it down to money in versus money out is wrong the way to look at it. We are paying for net benefits and we make more than what we pay in back.
Why do you think the U.K. have been happy to pay to be EU members?
It is wrong though because it’s ignoring what we pay that money for.
It’s ignoring the cheaper and easier trading we get, it’s ignoring the end access to medical research we get, it’s ignoring the access to confidential information we get, it’s ignoring the access to criminal and terrorist data we get, it’s ignoring the fact British people can travel easier through the eu, it’s ignoring the ability to move to Spain or France when you retire without any issues.
It’s like me saying you shouldn’t pay £300 for a season ticket because all you get back is a plastic card.
The net gain the U.K. get in terms of EU spend will be dwarfed by the amount of money we lose in not being in the trading bloc. Ergo it isn’t a benefit.