There......that wasn't hard was it ?
If you spoke to your carer nicely I knew he would help you.
I disagree with several points but mainly........
The negative is obvious, ie the loss of housing stock. Only this happens regardless of right to buy or not.
If there is a stock of publicly owned housing, with rents paid directly to the local authority who have responsibility to supply suitable housing for the locality, they will have a fund to rebuild and alter the housing available to suit the demographic.No right to buy no loss of of stock, leave property ownership to the private sector to supply.
The situation was that councils sold off stock at knock down prices to people that got into problems borrowing on the value of the house beyond their means.
This caused homes to be lost to the council, which eventually filter through to buy to rent landlords, who then let the same homes back to the council at inflated rents to rehouse the same people out of government credits.
Sheer bloody madness !!!!!
Have never understood the need to own, to be honest.
The end of labour?
The end of labour?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501639 wrote: There......that wasn't hard was it ?
If you spoke to your carer nicely I knew he would help you.
I disagree with several points but mainly........
If there is a stock of publicly owned housing, with rents paid directly to the local authority who have responsibility to supply suitable housing for the locality, they will have a fund to rebuild and alter the housing available to suit the demographic.No right to buy no loss of of stock, leave property ownership to the private sector to supply.
The situation was that councils sold off stock at knock down prices to people that got into problems borrowing on the value of the house beyond their means.
This caused homes to be lost to the council, which eventually filter through to buy to rent landlords, who then let the same homes back to the council at inflated rents to rehouse the same people out of government credits.
Sheer bloody madness !!!!!
Have never understood the need to own, to be honest.
I have to agree. From what i have sourced, without going into laborious detail, it appears the original policy of 1980, was part of a proposal to replace the stock and they did so, or at least they attempted to meet their targets. It slowed dramatically under new Labour.
Paragraph
The problem exists since due to the government's new housing bill, local authorities are required to sell off their most valuable housing stock, as soon as the house becomes vacant, and it's estimated that this would raise an average of 4.5 billion for local authorities. They are then required to build replacements using the money from the revenue and any surplus being used to fund the right to buy policy in their area's Any shortfall's and the government make up the deficit. The downfall of this policy of the housing bill, is local councils handling the money. If it was governed by the government, we would maybe see more homes built, but local authorities are notorious for wasting public money that is not ring fenced. Another negative, is that councils can only sell stock when they become vacant and if it happens to be an area, where movement is stagnant, they do not have the houses to sell off to build more.
If you spoke to your carer nicely I knew he would help you.
I disagree with several points but mainly........
If there is a stock of publicly owned housing, with rents paid directly to the local authority who have responsibility to supply suitable housing for the locality, they will have a fund to rebuild and alter the housing available to suit the demographic.No right to buy no loss of of stock, leave property ownership to the private sector to supply.
The situation was that councils sold off stock at knock down prices to people that got into problems borrowing on the value of the house beyond their means.
This caused homes to be lost to the council, which eventually filter through to buy to rent landlords, who then let the same homes back to the council at inflated rents to rehouse the same people out of government credits.
Sheer bloody madness !!!!!
Have never understood the need to own, to be honest.
I have to agree. From what i have sourced, without going into laborious detail, it appears the original policy of 1980, was part of a proposal to replace the stock and they did so, or at least they attempted to meet their targets. It slowed dramatically under new Labour.
Paragraph
The problem exists since due to the government's new housing bill, local authorities are required to sell off their most valuable housing stock, as soon as the house becomes vacant, and it's estimated that this would raise an average of 4.5 billion for local authorities. They are then required to build replacements using the money from the revenue and any surplus being used to fund the right to buy policy in their area's Any shortfall's and the government make up the deficit. The downfall of this policy of the housing bill, is local councils handling the money. If it was governed by the government, we would maybe see more homes built, but local authorities are notorious for wasting public money that is not ring fenced. Another negative, is that councils can only sell stock when they become vacant and if it happens to be an area, where movement is stagnant, they do not have the houses to sell off to build more.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501640 wrote: I have to agree. From what i have sourced, without going into laborious detail, it appears the original policy of 1980, was part of a proposal to replace the stock and they did so, or at least they attempted to meet their targets.
I thought the scheme stopped the revenues being used to replace the housing stock.......seemed ridiculous when I heard that......I could be wrong though.
Seems like the Conservatives spend most of their time selling off publicly owned property at knock down prices. Railways,Gas and Electric and housing.....creating situations like THIS
Right to Buy: History and Prospect
Fewer than one in five of Right to Buy sales replaced by new council homes
I thought the scheme stopped the revenues being used to replace the housing stock.......seemed ridiculous when I heard that......I could be wrong though.
Seems like the Conservatives spend most of their time selling off publicly owned property at knock down prices. Railways,Gas and Electric and housing.....creating situations like THIS
Right to Buy: History and Prospect
Fewer than one in five of Right to Buy sales replaced by new council homes
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Momus;1501598 wrote:
Social housing is on the up. Pledges to build 275,000 more homes by 2020 is the fastest growth in decades.
Then comes the subject of migration and birth rates of ethnic groups and those mothers born outside of the UK, outweighing birth rates of British. With net migration at figures reaching 130,000 in and migration, out at 60,000, when summing up the housing crisis, this can not be ignored as a major factor.
At least that made me laugh. "Pledges to build 275,000 homes". Pledges? Pledges??? Since when have pledges meant anything to the Tories. Take these Election Pledges, for example:
Labour reveals 21 broken promises by the Tories - one for every week they've been in government - Mirror Online
Furthermore, look at what these "Social Housing" homes are. More often than not they are for Luxury Appartments. Furthermore, many of these Luxury Appartments are being built on land where perfectly habitable Council properties already existed - forcing entire communities out of the homes by way of Social Cleansing, rehousing them miles away from their former friends & neighbours, just so that their homes can be bulldozed & sold off to Private Developers for "Affordable Housing". Then comes the "Right To Buy" farce. Just what is the point of building Social Housing properties for the lower income bracket, only to have to sell it off again at a greatly reduced value, only for them then to sell it on again at full market value? Who benefits? Oh yes - the wealthy Tories. Then there is the Tory claim about how much Social Housing they are building compared to Labour. Bear in mind that the Thatcher Government not only introduced the Right To Buy, but they also introduced laws that prohibited Councils from building replacement homes.
This is the face of the Tories Social Housing Program - to destroy a thriving community so that more Tories can get richer, building more Luxury Appartments:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... iverdipour
How you can say that Right To Buy is "tired rhetoric" is unfathomable. It is the most evil form of Social Cleansing that has ever existed in this country since the Middle Ages. It was barbaric when it was first introduced, and has steadily continued to get worse. What next? Take all those evicted from their homes in cattle trucks for 'resettlement', while they sell off the land to their buddies at rock bottom prices?
Social housing is on the up. Pledges to build 275,000 more homes by 2020 is the fastest growth in decades.
Then comes the subject of migration and birth rates of ethnic groups and those mothers born outside of the UK, outweighing birth rates of British. With net migration at figures reaching 130,000 in and migration, out at 60,000, when summing up the housing crisis, this can not be ignored as a major factor.
At least that made me laugh. "Pledges to build 275,000 homes". Pledges? Pledges??? Since when have pledges meant anything to the Tories. Take these Election Pledges, for example:
Labour reveals 21 broken promises by the Tories - one for every week they've been in government - Mirror Online
Furthermore, look at what these "Social Housing" homes are. More often than not they are for Luxury Appartments. Furthermore, many of these Luxury Appartments are being built on land where perfectly habitable Council properties already existed - forcing entire communities out of the homes by way of Social Cleansing, rehousing them miles away from their former friends & neighbours, just so that their homes can be bulldozed & sold off to Private Developers for "Affordable Housing". Then comes the "Right To Buy" farce. Just what is the point of building Social Housing properties for the lower income bracket, only to have to sell it off again at a greatly reduced value, only for them then to sell it on again at full market value? Who benefits? Oh yes - the wealthy Tories. Then there is the Tory claim about how much Social Housing they are building compared to Labour. Bear in mind that the Thatcher Government not only introduced the Right To Buy, but they also introduced laws that prohibited Councils from building replacement homes.
This is the face of the Tories Social Housing Program - to destroy a thriving community so that more Tories can get richer, building more Luxury Appartments:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... iverdipour
How you can say that Right To Buy is "tired rhetoric" is unfathomable. It is the most evil form of Social Cleansing that has ever existed in this country since the Middle Ages. It was barbaric when it was first introduced, and has steadily continued to get worse. What next? Take all those evicted from their homes in cattle trucks for 'resettlement', while they sell off the land to their buddies at rock bottom prices?
The end of labour?
FourPart;1501651 wrote: At least that made me laugh. "Pledges to build 275,000 homes". Pledges? Pledges??? Since when have pledges meant anything to the Tories. Bear in mind that the Thatcher Government not only introduced the Right To Buy, but they also introduced laws that prohibited Councils from building replacement homes.
Where on earth do you glean this misinformation from? Where is your evidence?
It is fact that the Thatcher government built more council homes in one year, than Blair and Brown built in 13 years.
Labour ‘should apologise for social housing failure’ | London Evening Standard
As for pledges, Corbyn is already under fire for failing to meet the pledges he made on mental health, even going as far as to abolish the shadow cabinet mental health minister. Another pledge saw him announce a 50/50 appointment of men and women to the shadow cabinet, and he has gone back on this also. Broken pledges? I would take satisfaction from listing every unfulfilled Labour pledge, but i have to be up in the morning and it would be difficult to know where to start. " Education education education" or how about " British jobs for British workers", or perhaps the pledge to only borrow for investment just to see the reverse when borrowing under Labour, the debt reached 1.4 trillion.
Where on earth do you glean this misinformation from? Where is your evidence?
It is fact that the Thatcher government built more council homes in one year, than Blair and Brown built in 13 years.
Labour ‘should apologise for social housing failure’ | London Evening Standard
As for pledges, Corbyn is already under fire for failing to meet the pledges he made on mental health, even going as far as to abolish the shadow cabinet mental health minister. Another pledge saw him announce a 50/50 appointment of men and women to the shadow cabinet, and he has gone back on this also. Broken pledges? I would take satisfaction from listing every unfulfilled Labour pledge, but i have to be up in the morning and it would be difficult to know where to start. " Education education education" or how about " British jobs for British workers", or perhaps the pledge to only borrow for investment just to see the reverse when borrowing under Labour, the debt reached 1.4 trillion.
The end of labour?
Under blair an brown the labour party became just a variation of the tory party except more hypocritical that's one of the reasons their support has haemorrhaged the question is whethr corbyn can give the kiss of life to a corpse.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501670 wrote: As for pledges, Corbyn is already under fire for failing to meet the pledges he made on mental health, even going as far as to abolish the shadow cabinet mental health minister.
How can Corbyn get stick for failing to fulfill pledges, when he is not in government ?
How can Corbyn get stick for failing to fulfill pledges, when he is not in government ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501678 wrote: How can Corbyn get stick for failing to fulfill pledges, when he is not in government ?
The appointment of a mental health minister to the shadow cabinet, does not require being in government. The appointment of 50/50 men and women to the cabinet does not require being in government.
The clue is in the words ' shadow cabinet'.
The appointment of a mental health minister to the shadow cabinet, does not require being in government. The appointment of 50/50 men and women to the cabinet does not require being in government.
The clue is in the words ' shadow cabinet'.
The end of labour?
Corbyn's pledges HERE
I understand the Mental Health secretary resigned during the recent party squabbles, mental health and social care is included in the published pledges though.
Picking the most able for the jobs may not give the ideal 50/50 split.................he gets stick either way.
I understand the Mental Health secretary resigned during the recent party squabbles, mental health and social care is included in the published pledges though.
Picking the most able for the jobs may not give the ideal 50/50 split.................he gets stick either way.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501684 wrote: Corbyn's pledges HERE
I understand the Mental Health secretary resigned during the recent party squabbles, mental health and social care is included in the published pledges though.
Picking the most able for the jobs may not give the ideal 50/50 split.................he gets stick either way.
Quite ironic that two posts back, Fourpart scoffed at the Tory pledge to build 250,000 new homes in 1980, only to see Corbyn pledge one million new homes by 2021. This is utter fantasy. Unless, great swathes of brown belt become available in towns and cities, the planning applications to build on green belt to the tune of one million new builds, with such opposition from local authorities and populations, could see planning tied up for a decade. Regarding security for renters, the 2015 manifesto proposed to end six month lets and impose a minimum three year let on private rents. This would cripple the private rent sector. While offering security for the tenant for three years, landlords face a costly and timely exercise evicting bad tenants as it is. To impose this proposal, would deter half of private let landlords. He also includes a proposal to increase access to affordable home ownership. The only solution would be to increase the right to buy policy and in turn, selling housing stock which would once again, lead to a future housing crisis.
He talks of security at work by ending zero hours contracts. Rather hypocritical when 40 or so Labour MP's were found to be employing staff on these contracts. What he's really talking about is a return to hard line unions and militant strikes.
Peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy. More hypocritical hogwash. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan is part of the true cause of so few new homes being built under new Labour.
I understand the Mental Health secretary resigned during the recent party squabbles, mental health and social care is included in the published pledges though.
Picking the most able for the jobs may not give the ideal 50/50 split.................he gets stick either way.
Quite ironic that two posts back, Fourpart scoffed at the Tory pledge to build 250,000 new homes in 1980, only to see Corbyn pledge one million new homes by 2021. This is utter fantasy. Unless, great swathes of brown belt become available in towns and cities, the planning applications to build on green belt to the tune of one million new builds, with such opposition from local authorities and populations, could see planning tied up for a decade. Regarding security for renters, the 2015 manifesto proposed to end six month lets and impose a minimum three year let on private rents. This would cripple the private rent sector. While offering security for the tenant for three years, landlords face a costly and timely exercise evicting bad tenants as it is. To impose this proposal, would deter half of private let landlords. He also includes a proposal to increase access to affordable home ownership. The only solution would be to increase the right to buy policy and in turn, selling housing stock which would once again, lead to a future housing crisis.
He talks of security at work by ending zero hours contracts. Rather hypocritical when 40 or so Labour MP's were found to be employing staff on these contracts. What he's really talking about is a return to hard line unions and militant strikes.
Peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy. More hypocritical hogwash. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan is part of the true cause of so few new homes being built under new Labour.
The end of labour?
My point was that the Tories may have been promoting the building of homes - but not Council ones. These were for the Private Market, and selling off perfectly good Council estates so that those existing homes could be demolished in order to sell off the land to the Private Developers. Yes, perhaps more properties BUILT, but what is the NET number of homes? Demolishing 100 homes in order to build 50 luxury appartments may look good in spin figures - "Look, we have just built 50 more homes" - with no mention of the ones they knocked down. And what proportion of those ended up housing those of the lower income bracket? And just where were these homes built?
Lies, Damned Lies & Government Statistics.
As for being a 50/50 male / female shadow cabinet. Well, in fairness, it's difficult to have 50/50 with an odd number, but at the moment, there is a majority of females on the Shadow Cabinet. (16 / 17) - The Labour Party - I think that's as close to 50 / 50 as you can get.
Lies, Damned Lies & Government Statistics.
As for being a 50/50 male / female shadow cabinet. Well, in fairness, it's difficult to have 50/50 with an odd number, but at the moment, there is a majority of females on the Shadow Cabinet. (16 / 17) - The Labour Party - I think that's as close to 50 / 50 as you can get.
The end of labour?
I will give you that one. He has now, of recent appointments, closed the gap of women vs men in the shadow cabinet, yet what a shower?
Dianne Abbott, investigated for failing to file accounts for her charity and sacked by Miliband.
Sarah Champion now minister for domestic abuse. I would have to say that this is the most amusing of all appointments. After coming under fierce criticism for turning a blind eye to child abuse in her constituency of Rotherham, she faced further criticism when caught out claiming £17 for a wreath on Remembrance Sunday, on expenses, something forbidden by party rules. Now revealed that the new minister of domestic abuse, was actually arrested for hitting her husband, and allegedly, not just a one off.
Shami Chakrabarti under attack from the Jewish population that her report into anti-Semitism within the party was a whitewash. I could go on, but if this is the quality of all that Corbyn can find, here's to a Tory landslide in 2020.
Dianne Abbott, investigated for failing to file accounts for her charity and sacked by Miliband.
Sarah Champion now minister for domestic abuse. I would have to say that this is the most amusing of all appointments. After coming under fierce criticism for turning a blind eye to child abuse in her constituency of Rotherham, she faced further criticism when caught out claiming £17 for a wreath on Remembrance Sunday, on expenses, something forbidden by party rules. Now revealed that the new minister of domestic abuse, was actually arrested for hitting her husband, and allegedly, not just a one off.
Shami Chakrabarti under attack from the Jewish population that her report into anti-Semitism within the party was a whitewash. I could go on, but if this is the quality of all that Corbyn can find, here's to a Tory landslide in 2020.
The end of labour?
2020 ?............................four whole years away.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501803 wrote: 2020 ?............................four whole years away. Your observation is stupendous.
The end of labour?
And even a week is a long time in politics.
The end of labour?
FourPart;1501790 wrote: My point was that the Tories may have been promoting the building of homes - but not Council ones. These were for the Private Market, and selling off perfectly good Council estates so that those existing homes could be demolished in order to sell off the land to the Private Developers.
Where do you get this disinformation? You are wrong, extremely wrong. In both Blair and Brown governments over the period of 13 years, they built 7,870 council houses. During Thatcher's government, she never built below 17,710 council houses every single year.
Under the Labour government between 1997 and 2010, there were 2.6 million new homes built, but only 0.3 % were local authority homes, ie council. During Thatcher's government, she also built a similar figure of new homes, 2.63 million to be exact, but 18.9 % of these went to local authorities for social housing ie council. Study the stats further and you'll find that during 13 years of Labour office, they built 562 council houses per year. During Thatcher's government, the figure was 41. 343.
While Labour continue to place blame at the door of Thatcher, the truth is, the numbers began to drop drastically under John Major. Another major factor of the dramatic drop in construction under Labour was the national debt Labour plunged the country into from 1997.
As for the appointments to the shadow cabinet, such as Ms Abbott and Sarah Champion, the 2020 may well be four years away, but it is four years in order for both to bring humiliation to the party by repeating past idiotic behaviour. Their appointments are nothing new and many Labour MP's are extremely against reappointing such tired old failures. These appointments will add to the departure of Corbyn within the next year. All political parties need to evolve to stay fresh and bringing back those who have already heaped humiliation on the party faithful, is political suicide. When you have an MP such as Ms Abbott, renowned for disloyalty to the leader and renowned as a trouble maker, to reappoint her, lies bare to the electorate, this is no more than the old socialist club reforming with nothing new to offer. That is why, they will never win an elections again. There are many young fresh new Labour MP's who if appointed could have made great differences to the party. Corbyn is not taking the risk of appointing new MP's but going back to the tired old hasbeen's that the country already mocks and will never take seriously.
Where do you get this disinformation? You are wrong, extremely wrong. In both Blair and Brown governments over the period of 13 years, they built 7,870 council houses. During Thatcher's government, she never built below 17,710 council houses every single year.
Under the Labour government between 1997 and 2010, there were 2.6 million new homes built, but only 0.3 % were local authority homes, ie council. During Thatcher's government, she also built a similar figure of new homes, 2.63 million to be exact, but 18.9 % of these went to local authorities for social housing ie council. Study the stats further and you'll find that during 13 years of Labour office, they built 562 council houses per year. During Thatcher's government, the figure was 41. 343.
While Labour continue to place blame at the door of Thatcher, the truth is, the numbers began to drop drastically under John Major. Another major factor of the dramatic drop in construction under Labour was the national debt Labour plunged the country into from 1997.
As for the appointments to the shadow cabinet, such as Ms Abbott and Sarah Champion, the 2020 may well be four years away, but it is four years in order for both to bring humiliation to the party by repeating past idiotic behaviour. Their appointments are nothing new and many Labour MP's are extremely against reappointing such tired old failures. These appointments will add to the departure of Corbyn within the next year. All political parties need to evolve to stay fresh and bringing back those who have already heaped humiliation on the party faithful, is political suicide. When you have an MP such as Ms Abbott, renowned for disloyalty to the leader and renowned as a trouble maker, to reappoint her, lies bare to the electorate, this is no more than the old socialist club reforming with nothing new to offer. That is why, they will never win an elections again. There are many young fresh new Labour MP's who if appointed could have made great differences to the party. Corbyn is not taking the risk of appointing new MP's but going back to the tired old hasbeen's that the country already mocks and will never take seriously.
The end of labour?
Blair is a liar and a hypocrite gordon brown is a blundering buffoon it's a toss up whether thatcher or blair/brown have done the most to destroy the UK economy and the fabric of our society but david cameron takes the prize for finishing it off. We need another general elction amnd oparliament should have a say on brexit, parliament is sovereign not the prime minister.
The end of labour?
gmc;1501830 wrote: Blair is a liar and a hypocrite gordon brown is a blundering buffoon it's a toss up whether thatcher or blair/brown have done the most to destroy the UK economy and the fabric of our society but david cameron takes the prize for finishing it off. We need another general elction amnd oparliament should have a say on brexit, parliament is sovereign not the prime minister.
Are you saying 17 million votes to leave the EU count for nothing?
Are you saying 17 million votes to leave the EU count for nothing?
The end of labour?
Momus;1501832 wrote: Are you saying 17 million votes to leave the EU count for nothing?
No I'm saying 16,141,241 Votes to remain can't just be ignored. We live in a democracy wjhen one side wins an elaction the opposition is still there and fdoes not stop.
Especially when the consequences are devastating for so many. IMO opinion many of those voting to leave are using it as a protest vote not against the eu but agauinst thirty years of lousy government, also it should be apparent to even the thickest that ukip and the leave campaign were lying about how much we pay to the eu, about the benefits we get from membership, how many of our laws are actually a result of european legislation how many cases are actually lost by the UK goevernment in the european court of human rights. Once it dawns on those in the north east that it means the end of nissan and toyota investing any more in their factiories once those who work for compoanies that export to the eu realise that leavimng the single market means the end of theor comapnies since they can no longer compete once the effect of the falling pound hits home in rising inflation and they see the nhs privatised by a fascist government (250 million to spend on the nhs who was stupid enough to believe that one) and the expat OAP living in spain come home as they can no longer access spanish healthcare many are going to reject the choices they made.
In this country parliament is sovereign we do not govern by plebiscite.There is a lot wrong with the eu no one would argue there is not to leave the single market waving two fingers at the rest of europe is an act of stupidity that beggars belief england is on it's way to becoming a third world country. I say england because despite westminster constantly ignoring the fact that scotland is not a northern region of england the reality is a second referendum is increasingly likely and is theresa may tries to stop it a yes vote is almost certain. She can hardly make a case for leaving the eu to gain control of the nations future and then turn round and say the scots don't have the same right.
No I'm saying 16,141,241 Votes to remain can't just be ignored. We live in a democracy wjhen one side wins an elaction the opposition is still there and fdoes not stop.
Especially when the consequences are devastating for so many. IMO opinion many of those voting to leave are using it as a protest vote not against the eu but agauinst thirty years of lousy government, also it should be apparent to even the thickest that ukip and the leave campaign were lying about how much we pay to the eu, about the benefits we get from membership, how many of our laws are actually a result of european legislation how many cases are actually lost by the UK goevernment in the european court of human rights. Once it dawns on those in the north east that it means the end of nissan and toyota investing any more in their factiories once those who work for compoanies that export to the eu realise that leavimng the single market means the end of theor comapnies since they can no longer compete once the effect of the falling pound hits home in rising inflation and they see the nhs privatised by a fascist government (250 million to spend on the nhs who was stupid enough to believe that one) and the expat OAP living in spain come home as they can no longer access spanish healthcare many are going to reject the choices they made.
In this country parliament is sovereign we do not govern by plebiscite.There is a lot wrong with the eu no one would argue there is not to leave the single market waving two fingers at the rest of europe is an act of stupidity that beggars belief england is on it's way to becoming a third world country. I say england because despite westminster constantly ignoring the fact that scotland is not a northern region of england the reality is a second referendum is increasingly likely and is theresa may tries to stop it a yes vote is almost certain. She can hardly make a case for leaving the eu to gain control of the nations future and then turn round and say the scots don't have the same right.
The end of labour?
gmc;1501834 wrote: No I'm saying 16,141,241 Votes to remain can't just be ignored. We live in a democracy wjhen one side wins an elaction the opposition is still there and fdoes not stop.
Especially when the consequences are devastating for so many. IMO opinion many of those voting to leave are using it as a protest vote not against the eu but agauinst thirty years of lousy government, also it should be apparent to even the thickest that ukip and the leave campaign were lying about how much we pay to the eu, about the benefits we get from membership, how many of our laws are actually a result of european legislation how many cases are actually lost by the UK goevernment in the european court of human rights. Once it dawns on those in the north east that it means the end of nissan and toyota investing any more in their factiories once those who work for compoanies that export to the eu realise that leavimng the single market means the end of theor comapnies since they can no longer compete once the effect of the falling pound hits home in rising inflation and they see the nhs privatised by a fascist government (250 million to spend on the nhs who was stupid enough to believe that one) and the expat OAP living in spain come home as they can no longer access spanish healthcare many are going to reject the choices they made.
In this country parliament is sovereign we do not govern by plebiscite.There is a lot wrong with the eu no one would argue there is not to leave the single market waving two fingers at the rest of europe is an act of stupidity that beggars belief england is on it's way to becoming a third world country. I say england because despite westminster constantly ignoring the fact that scotland is not a northern region of england the reality is a second referendum is increasingly likely and is theresa may tries to stop it a yes vote is almost certain. She can hardly make a case for leaving the eu to gain control of the nations future and then turn round and say the scots don't have the same right.
It never fails to amaze and amuse me, that those who use the word Democracy the most, actually do so whilst arguing in an undemocratic manner. Democracy was the act of holding a referendum. The outcome of that referendum regardless of winning margins, is that, Brexit won. Theresa May initially, was a remain voter. Her stance to invoke article 50 by February is commendable in that she is recognising the democratic vote. Were she not to do so, any Prime Minister failing to recognise that democratic vote would be finished politically and would no doubt, incite rioting and anarchy. If to pander to the remain camp, and recognise their protest, then what is the point of having a referendum in the first instance, when a compromise could have been drawn up. The hypocrisy is greater, when politicians announced prior to voting, that if Brexit lost, there will be no second referendum.
Your argument that there are remain voters who should be considered, does not exist in a democratic election. When MP's win their Seats by a small margin, you do not see the losing parties insist on a second election. In today's political climate, there is too much whining and crying with the word Democracy thrown in. It is wholly undemocratic, to fail to recognise the vote and call for a second referendum as some politicians have.
Naturally, there are big changes to come. For the past decades, we have been ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Europe, which in effect, is undemocratic. The Left have peddled propaganda to an extent, that young people actually believe, the UK can not exist outside of the EU, along with scare tactics about loss of industry.
Especially when the consequences are devastating for so many. IMO opinion many of those voting to leave are using it as a protest vote not against the eu but agauinst thirty years of lousy government, also it should be apparent to even the thickest that ukip and the leave campaign were lying about how much we pay to the eu, about the benefits we get from membership, how many of our laws are actually a result of european legislation how many cases are actually lost by the UK goevernment in the european court of human rights. Once it dawns on those in the north east that it means the end of nissan and toyota investing any more in their factiories once those who work for compoanies that export to the eu realise that leavimng the single market means the end of theor comapnies since they can no longer compete once the effect of the falling pound hits home in rising inflation and they see the nhs privatised by a fascist government (250 million to spend on the nhs who was stupid enough to believe that one) and the expat OAP living in spain come home as they can no longer access spanish healthcare many are going to reject the choices they made.
In this country parliament is sovereign we do not govern by plebiscite.There is a lot wrong with the eu no one would argue there is not to leave the single market waving two fingers at the rest of europe is an act of stupidity that beggars belief england is on it's way to becoming a third world country. I say england because despite westminster constantly ignoring the fact that scotland is not a northern region of england the reality is a second referendum is increasingly likely and is theresa may tries to stop it a yes vote is almost certain. She can hardly make a case for leaving the eu to gain control of the nations future and then turn round and say the scots don't have the same right.
It never fails to amaze and amuse me, that those who use the word Democracy the most, actually do so whilst arguing in an undemocratic manner. Democracy was the act of holding a referendum. The outcome of that referendum regardless of winning margins, is that, Brexit won. Theresa May initially, was a remain voter. Her stance to invoke article 50 by February is commendable in that she is recognising the democratic vote. Were she not to do so, any Prime Minister failing to recognise that democratic vote would be finished politically and would no doubt, incite rioting and anarchy. If to pander to the remain camp, and recognise their protest, then what is the point of having a referendum in the first instance, when a compromise could have been drawn up. The hypocrisy is greater, when politicians announced prior to voting, that if Brexit lost, there will be no second referendum.
Your argument that there are remain voters who should be considered, does not exist in a democratic election. When MP's win their Seats by a small margin, you do not see the losing parties insist on a second election. In today's political climate, there is too much whining and crying with the word Democracy thrown in. It is wholly undemocratic, to fail to recognise the vote and call for a second referendum as some politicians have.
Naturally, there are big changes to come. For the past decades, we have been ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Europe, which in effect, is undemocratic. The Left have peddled propaganda to an extent, that young people actually believe, the UK can not exist outside of the EU, along with scare tactics about loss of industry.
The end of labour?
posted by momus
Your argument that there are remain voters who should be considered, does not exist in a democratic election. When MP's win their Seats by a small margin, you do not see the losing parties insist on a second election. In today's political climate, there is too much whining and crying with the word Democracy thrown in. It is wholly undemocratic, to fail to recognise the vote and call for a second referendum as some politicians have.
We live in a representative democracy that there is lot wrong with a first past the post system where over two thirds of the electorate can vote against a party and still end up being governed by a party that doesn't represent them and they don't support is something that needs to be adressed. Neither labour pr the tories want PR because it means they would never get to form a goverment where they can do as they ih regardless of what is good or the country. We've jut had a good example of what hoppens when internal party politics become more important than behaving with integrity and discharging their oblgations as MP's from both the tories and labour.
Democracy does not mean that the ones that shouts the loudest get their own way and everyone else just has to suck it up even if it means the ruination of so much. Do you really think that had the fugures been the other way the leave campaign would have given up?
It is wholly undemocratic to ignore that almost half the population are against leaving and to tell us we should just be wuiet and accept something that is going to devastate our lives is unbelieveable arrogance, don;t tell; me I shpould just shut up yo have a fight bon your hands. . Parliament is sovereign an unelected prime minmister has no right to use royal prerogative to overrule them.
Naturally, there are big changes to come. For the past decades, we have been ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Europe, which in effect, is undemocratic. The Left have peddled propaganda to an extent, that young people actually believe, the UK can not exist outside of the EU, along with scare tactics about loss of industry.
What utter bollocks you have been taken in by ukip. Ha ha we won and you should shut up is a pathetic argumemt. We need time to allow people to really think this through and reconsider and yes have a second referendum when people have had a chance to look at the lie of the leave camnpaign in the cold light of day.
As a a scot for the last forty years I have been ruled by a government in westminter that does not rprsent my interests our resources hav been used to prop up a bankruot ecionomy with no thought to the future it's about time we took back control of our own destiny. I have never voted for the SNP until the last election and I voted no in the first independence referendum and yes in the second and will vote yes again in the third. I don't want to be part of a union hell bent of becoming a third world country. To pretend this won't affect our economy excet for the better is delusional to put it mildly. UKIP and the tories have nade is fashionable to sneer at the poor and the weak and blame foreigners for problems of our own creating the racists and bigots have licence to say and do what they will don't tell me I am not entitled to object.
Your argument that there are remain voters who should be considered, does not exist in a democratic election. When MP's win their Seats by a small margin, you do not see the losing parties insist on a second election. In today's political climate, there is too much whining and crying with the word Democracy thrown in. It is wholly undemocratic, to fail to recognise the vote and call for a second referendum as some politicians have.
We live in a representative democracy that there is lot wrong with a first past the post system where over two thirds of the electorate can vote against a party and still end up being governed by a party that doesn't represent them and they don't support is something that needs to be adressed. Neither labour pr the tories want PR because it means they would never get to form a goverment where they can do as they ih regardless of what is good or the country. We've jut had a good example of what hoppens when internal party politics become more important than behaving with integrity and discharging their oblgations as MP's from both the tories and labour.
Democracy does not mean that the ones that shouts the loudest get their own way and everyone else just has to suck it up even if it means the ruination of so much. Do you really think that had the fugures been the other way the leave campaign would have given up?
It is wholly undemocratic to ignore that almost half the population are against leaving and to tell us we should just be wuiet and accept something that is going to devastate our lives is unbelieveable arrogance, don;t tell; me I shpould just shut up yo have a fight bon your hands. . Parliament is sovereign an unelected prime minmister has no right to use royal prerogative to overrule them.
Naturally, there are big changes to come. For the past decades, we have been ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Europe, which in effect, is undemocratic. The Left have peddled propaganda to an extent, that young people actually believe, the UK can not exist outside of the EU, along with scare tactics about loss of industry.
What utter bollocks you have been taken in by ukip. Ha ha we won and you should shut up is a pathetic argumemt. We need time to allow people to really think this through and reconsider and yes have a second referendum when people have had a chance to look at the lie of the leave camnpaign in the cold light of day.
As a a scot for the last forty years I have been ruled by a government in westminter that does not rprsent my interests our resources hav been used to prop up a bankruot ecionomy with no thought to the future it's about time we took back control of our own destiny. I have never voted for the SNP until the last election and I voted no in the first independence referendum and yes in the second and will vote yes again in the third. I don't want to be part of a union hell bent of becoming a third world country. To pretend this won't affect our economy excet for the better is delusional to put it mildly. UKIP and the tories have nade is fashionable to sneer at the poor and the weak and blame foreigners for problems of our own creating the racists and bigots have licence to say and do what they will don't tell me I am not entitled to object.
The end of labour?
gmc;1501838 wrote: posted by momus
.
What utter bollocks you have been taken in by ukip.
.
Do not insult my intelligence.
On the contrary. No, there should not be a second referendum. If you believe there should, then you do not understand democracy at all. The propaganda bandied about prior to the referendum was ridiculous in the extreme, culminating in half the country taking the piss with meme's all over social media that all manner of disasters awaited us if we left, including children being abducted by aliens.
What Brexit has exposed, is a rather distasteful attitude of the Remain camp. We have ridiculous politicians and anyone else who fancies two penny worth, insisting that anyone who voted leave, had to be mentally retarded, racist or taken in by UKIP. It's a supercilious, condescending mentality, while, they themselves, fail to recognise that, it is themselves, who have been duped into believing the UK can not stand alone. According to Remain, the UK would immediately crash. It hasn't and nobody died.
Something, most Remain voters fail to understand, is the EU is not an economic project. One only has to look to the appalling treatment of Greece to observe the detrimental effect on weaker economies. The argument for Brexit, was never that there would be enormous economic gains for the UK, but that there would not be prohibitive economic costs that make being a member state, unfeasible. It was always recognised that we would lose around 6 % of GDP, by leaving. Despite this, the UK would gain GDP with new trade deals with non EU countries, most with free trade deals where EU countries would struggle. The EU negotiating trade deals is so complex and slow due to having to get 27 member states to agree along with the trade partner. Alone, the UK can secure trade deals, quicker and less costly. In the long term, any trade lost with EU member states, will be balanced out by trade with non EU countries.
The truth is, it is far to early to be able to state with certainty, that the UK will thrive or fall apart without the EU. Everything right now, is sheer speculation and scaremongering, with handbags at dawn because the Remain camp didn't get their own way.
.
What utter bollocks you have been taken in by ukip.
.
Do not insult my intelligence.
On the contrary. No, there should not be a second referendum. If you believe there should, then you do not understand democracy at all. The propaganda bandied about prior to the referendum was ridiculous in the extreme, culminating in half the country taking the piss with meme's all over social media that all manner of disasters awaited us if we left, including children being abducted by aliens.
What Brexit has exposed, is a rather distasteful attitude of the Remain camp. We have ridiculous politicians and anyone else who fancies two penny worth, insisting that anyone who voted leave, had to be mentally retarded, racist or taken in by UKIP. It's a supercilious, condescending mentality, while, they themselves, fail to recognise that, it is themselves, who have been duped into believing the UK can not stand alone. According to Remain, the UK would immediately crash. It hasn't and nobody died.
Something, most Remain voters fail to understand, is the EU is not an economic project. One only has to look to the appalling treatment of Greece to observe the detrimental effect on weaker economies. The argument for Brexit, was never that there would be enormous economic gains for the UK, but that there would not be prohibitive economic costs that make being a member state, unfeasible. It was always recognised that we would lose around 6 % of GDP, by leaving. Despite this, the UK would gain GDP with new trade deals with non EU countries, most with free trade deals where EU countries would struggle. The EU negotiating trade deals is so complex and slow due to having to get 27 member states to agree along with the trade partner. Alone, the UK can secure trade deals, quicker and less costly. In the long term, any trade lost with EU member states, will be balanced out by trade with non EU countries.
The truth is, it is far to early to be able to state with certainty, that the UK will thrive or fall apart without the EU. Everything right now, is sheer speculation and scaremongering, with handbags at dawn because the Remain camp didn't get their own way.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501844 wrote:
The EU negotiating trade deals is so complex and slow due to having to get 27 member states to agree along with the trade partner. Alone, the UK can secure trade deals, quicker and less costly.
But you said it was not democratic with unelected committees making all the rules..................make yer bleeding mind up.
The EU negotiating trade deals is so complex and slow due to having to get 27 member states to agree along with the trade partner. Alone, the UK can secure trade deals, quicker and less costly.
But you said it was not democratic with unelected committees making all the rules..................make yer bleeding mind up.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
As Tony Benn said, "you've got be able to defeat the people who govern you "...."Members of Parliament are lent the powers from their constituents and they have to return those powers undiminished at the end. Its not for Members of Parliament to give away the powers that are lent them because they dont belong to Members of Parliament, they belong to the electorate...."
I'm sick of hearing that because I voted leave, I fell for the UKIP con. Im sick of hearing that tired old mantra. It was for the precise reasons Tony Benn stated that I voted Leave and as he stated, a referendum is an entirely appropriate tool to wrestle back control from Government.
I'm sick of hearing that because I voted leave, I fell for the UKIP con. Im sick of hearing that tired old mantra. It was for the precise reasons Tony Benn stated that I voted Leave and as he stated, a referendum is an entirely appropriate tool to wrestle back control from Government.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501845 wrote: But you said it was not democratic with unelected committees making all the rules..................make yer bleeding mind up.
Au contraire, I said the UK was ruled by unelected bureaucrats. I was referring to EU laws, not trade deals.
Au contraire, I said the UK was ruled by unelected bureaucrats. I was referring to EU laws, not trade deals.
The end of labour?
Snowfire;1501847 wrote: As Tony Benn said, "you've got be able to defeat the people who govern you "...."Members of Parliament are lent the powers from their constituents and they have to return those powers undiminished at the end. Its not for Members of Parliament to give away the powers that are lent them because they dont belong to Members of Parliament, they belong to the electorate...."
I'm sick of hearing that because I voted leave, I fell for the UKIP con. Im sick of hearing that tired old mantra. It was for the precise reasons Tony Benn stated that I voted Leave and as he stated, a referendum is an entirely appropriate tool to wrestle back control from Government.
Quite right. When the leave camp possessed some of the countries highest statesmen and financiers, the ' you were duped by UKIP' rhetoric is really code for, damn, we lost, what do i say now'?
We live in an age of easy internet access. Every citizen can simply use google to bone up on the referendum. To even suggest that in this day and age, voters are so unintelligent, that they would not access the internet to learn more, or to listen to debates from politicians, and thus would fall for UKIP trickery, is an insult. Yet, judging by some of the most appalling placards confiscated by police at remain rally's, it appears that if anyone was duped, then it is the young, who have been indoctrinated to such an extent that they believe they have had their future destroyed by leave voters.
I'm sick of hearing that because I voted leave, I fell for the UKIP con. Im sick of hearing that tired old mantra. It was for the precise reasons Tony Benn stated that I voted Leave and as he stated, a referendum is an entirely appropriate tool to wrestle back control from Government.
Quite right. When the leave camp possessed some of the countries highest statesmen and financiers, the ' you were duped by UKIP' rhetoric is really code for, damn, we lost, what do i say now'?
We live in an age of easy internet access. Every citizen can simply use google to bone up on the referendum. To even suggest that in this day and age, voters are so unintelligent, that they would not access the internet to learn more, or to listen to debates from politicians, and thus would fall for UKIP trickery, is an insult. Yet, judging by some of the most appalling placards confiscated by police at remain rally's, it appears that if anyone was duped, then it is the young, who have been indoctrinated to such an extent that they believe they have had their future destroyed by leave voters.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501844 wrote: Do not insult my intelligence.
On the contrary. No, there should not be a second referendum. If you believe there should, then you do not understand democracy at all. The propaganda bandied about prior to the referendum was ridiculous in the extreme, culminating in half the country taking the piss with meme's all over social media that all manner of disasters awaited us if we left, including children being abducted by aliens.
What Brexit has exposed, is a rather distasteful attitude of the Remain camp. We have ridiculous politicians and anyone else who fancies two penny worth, insisting that anyone who voted leave, had to be mentally retarded, racist or taken in by UKIP. It's a supercilious, condescending mentality, while, they themselves, fail to recognise that, it is themselves, who have been duped into believing the UK can not stand alone. According to Remain, the UK would immediately crash. It hasn't and nobody died.
Something, most Remain voters fail to understand, is the EU is not an economic project. One only has to look to the appalling treatment of Greece to observe the detrimental effect on weaker economies. The argument for Brexit, was never that there would be enormous economic gains for the UK, but that there would not be prohibitive economic costs that make being a member state, unfeasible. It was always recognised that we would lose around 6 % of GDP, by leaving. Despite this, the UK would gain GDP with new trade deals with non EU countries, most with free trade deals where EU countries would struggle. The EU negotiating trade deals is so complex and slow due to having to get 27 member states to agree along with the trade partner. Alone, the UK can secure trade deals, quicker and less costly. In the long term, any trade lost with EU member states, will be balanced out by trade with non EU countries.
The truth is, it is far to early to be able to state with certainty, that the UK will thrive or fall apart without the EU. Everything right now, is sheer speculation and scaremongering, with handbags at dawn because the Remain camp didn't get their own way.
i didn't insult your intelligence I said you were talking bollocks and that you'd been taken in by ukip. If you think that is an insult to your intelligence then you miss the point point that many voting to leave did so having believed the lies being told by ukip in the cold light of day I suspect many would like to change their minds.
I still think you are talking bollocks or if you prefer nonsense, balderdash, poppycock, gobbledegook. This is a demcracuy people disagree with you get used to it and don't tell them they have no right tio disagree with you. I wouldn remind you nI lve in a country that voted to remain. We only have one labour, one tory and one libdem MP that should tell you something,.
posted by snowfire
As Tony Benn said, "you've got be able to defeat the people who govern you "...."Members of Parliament are lent the powers from their constituents and they have to return those powers undiminished at the end. Its not for Members of Parliament to give away the powers that are lent them because they dont belong to Members of Parliament, they belong to the electorate...."
I'm sick of hearing that because I voted leave, I fell for the UKIP con. Im sick of hearing that tired old mantra. It was for the precise reasons Tony Benn stated that I voted Leave and as he stated, a referendum is an entirely appropriate tool to wrestle back control from Government.
Our electoral systen is rigged so that those who get elected do not actually reflect the way people are voting instead we have "strong" givernment withna majority tio do as they wish. I'm sick and tired with the same old mantra we voted to leave so those who are opposed should just shut up and take what happens.
On the contrary. No, there should not be a second referendum. If you believe there should, then you do not understand democracy at all. The propaganda bandied about prior to the referendum was ridiculous in the extreme, culminating in half the country taking the piss with meme's all over social media that all manner of disasters awaited us if we left, including children being abducted by aliens.
What Brexit has exposed, is a rather distasteful attitude of the Remain camp. We have ridiculous politicians and anyone else who fancies two penny worth, insisting that anyone who voted leave, had to be mentally retarded, racist or taken in by UKIP. It's a supercilious, condescending mentality, while, they themselves, fail to recognise that, it is themselves, who have been duped into believing the UK can not stand alone. According to Remain, the UK would immediately crash. It hasn't and nobody died.
Something, most Remain voters fail to understand, is the EU is not an economic project. One only has to look to the appalling treatment of Greece to observe the detrimental effect on weaker economies. The argument for Brexit, was never that there would be enormous economic gains for the UK, but that there would not be prohibitive economic costs that make being a member state, unfeasible. It was always recognised that we would lose around 6 % of GDP, by leaving. Despite this, the UK would gain GDP with new trade deals with non EU countries, most with free trade deals where EU countries would struggle. The EU negotiating trade deals is so complex and slow due to having to get 27 member states to agree along with the trade partner. Alone, the UK can secure trade deals, quicker and less costly. In the long term, any trade lost with EU member states, will be balanced out by trade with non EU countries.
The truth is, it is far to early to be able to state with certainty, that the UK will thrive or fall apart without the EU. Everything right now, is sheer speculation and scaremongering, with handbags at dawn because the Remain camp didn't get their own way.
i didn't insult your intelligence I said you were talking bollocks and that you'd been taken in by ukip. If you think that is an insult to your intelligence then you miss the point point that many voting to leave did so having believed the lies being told by ukip in the cold light of day I suspect many would like to change their minds.
I still think you are talking bollocks or if you prefer nonsense, balderdash, poppycock, gobbledegook. This is a demcracuy people disagree with you get used to it and don't tell them they have no right tio disagree with you. I wouldn remind you nI lve in a country that voted to remain. We only have one labour, one tory and one libdem MP that should tell you something,.
posted by snowfire
As Tony Benn said, "you've got be able to defeat the people who govern you "...."Members of Parliament are lent the powers from their constituents and they have to return those powers undiminished at the end. Its not for Members of Parliament to give away the powers that are lent them because they dont belong to Members of Parliament, they belong to the electorate...."
I'm sick of hearing that because I voted leave, I fell for the UKIP con. Im sick of hearing that tired old mantra. It was for the precise reasons Tony Benn stated that I voted Leave and as he stated, a referendum is an entirely appropriate tool to wrestle back control from Government.
Our electoral systen is rigged so that those who get elected do not actually reflect the way people are voting instead we have "strong" givernment withna majority tio do as they wish. I'm sick and tired with the same old mantra we voted to leave so those who are opposed should just shut up and take what happens.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501848 wrote: Au contraire, I said the UK was ruled by unelected bureaucrats. I was referring to EU laws, not trade deals.
Think you are what gmc so succinctly put it........talking testes.
Think you are what gmc so succinctly put it........talking testes.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501851 wrote: Think you are what gmc so succinctly put it........talking testes.
I am sure you are a woman. One of those whitterers who yaks endlessly, whilst saying, nothing.
I am sure you are a woman. One of those whitterers who yaks endlessly, whilst saying, nothing.
The end of labour?
I voted Leave purely for my own reasons, based on what I have seen in real life. Based on how the EU had grown from the Trade Treaty that it was originally intended as (which I still agree with) to the annexing of the UK into a Central European Government, ruled from Brussels. I didn't need any of the rhetoric from any of the campaigning sides, as it was all a case of scaremongering - each side as bad as the other, thus cancelling out the blameworthiness of each other. I have my own mind. To make out that I was deceived by UKIP, etc, or that I regretted my decision immediately afterwards, or that I voted as a Political Protest I find, quite frankly demeaning. If the decision to Leave or Remain were to be based on a Parliamentary decision, then it would have been a landslide to Remain - probably because so many of them have their snouts in the trough of the Gravy Train. But that just goes to show that just because they are voted into position that they are not necessarily representative of their constituents' wishes - just as with the Labour PLP MPs.
The end of labour?
FourPart;1501853 wrote: I voted Leave purely for my own reasons, based on what I have seen in real life. Based on how the EU had grown from the Trade Treaty that it was originally intended as (which I still agree with) to the annexing of the UK into a Central European Government, ruled from Brussels. I didn't need any of the rhetoric from any of the campaigning sides, as it was all a case of scaremongering - each side as bad as the other, thus cancelling out the blameworthiness of each other. I have my own mind. To make out that I was deceived by UKIP, etc, or that I regretted my decision immediately afterwards, or that I voted as a Political Protest I find, quite frankly demeaning. If the decision to Leave or Remain were to be based on a Parliamentary decision, then it would have been a landslide to Remain - probably because so many of them have their snouts in the trough of the Gravy Train. But that just goes to show that just because they are voted into position that they are not necessarily representative of their constituents' wishes - just as with the Labour PLP MPs.
I totally agree with you. Whether Ted Heath lied to a nation back in 1970 when he proposed a second stab at joining the Common Market, is argued still to this day. Britain's first application to join the CM came under Harold Wilson in 1966, only to be blocked by General de Gaulle.
Under the 30 year, secrets rule, documents relating to Heath's proposal are now open to scrutiny. One set of documents is the Werner Report, which back in 1970, rang alarm bells. Taken from the Werner report 1970
“the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decadeâ€. (PRO/FCO 30/789)"
It's still argued today that upon this report, Heath should have been alarmed and questioned what exactly we were signing up to, under the guise of The Common Market. Other documents suggest that Heath insisted the plan not to be discussed with the public, as it could make the task of persuading Parliament to join, much harder. When the documents were released 30 years later, it was confirmed by former Foreign Office official Sir Crispin Tickell that they knew that joining would see a significant loss of sovereignty. He confirmed that there was a deliberate attempt by politicians and civil servants to hide from the public, the true extent of a future within the CM.
I totally agree with you. Whether Ted Heath lied to a nation back in 1970 when he proposed a second stab at joining the Common Market, is argued still to this day. Britain's first application to join the CM came under Harold Wilson in 1966, only to be blocked by General de Gaulle.
Under the 30 year, secrets rule, documents relating to Heath's proposal are now open to scrutiny. One set of documents is the Werner Report, which back in 1970, rang alarm bells. Taken from the Werner report 1970
“the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decadeâ€. (PRO/FCO 30/789)"
It's still argued today that upon this report, Heath should have been alarmed and questioned what exactly we were signing up to, under the guise of The Common Market. Other documents suggest that Heath insisted the plan not to be discussed with the public, as it could make the task of persuading Parliament to join, much harder. When the documents were released 30 years later, it was confirmed by former Foreign Office official Sir Crispin Tickell that they knew that joining would see a significant loss of sovereignty. He confirmed that there was a deliberate attempt by politicians and civil servants to hide from the public, the true extent of a future within the CM.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501862 wrote: Other documents suggest that Heath insisted the plan not to be discussed with the public, as it could make the task of persuading Parliament to join, much harder.
So apparently.......British democracy is better than European ?
So apparently.......British democracy is better than European ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501866 wrote: So apparently.......British democracy is better than European ?
Just because a pig is born in a stable, it doesn't make him a horse.
Just because a pig is born in a stable, it doesn't make him a horse.
The end of labour?
Momus;1501852 wrote: I am sure you are a woman. One of those whitterers who yaks endlessly, whilst saying, nothing.
If bruv is female does that mean you have given up on getting the last word?:sneaky:
If bruv is female does that mean you have given up on getting the last word?:sneaky:
The end of labour?
Momus;1501867 wrote: Just because a pig is born in a stable, it doesn't make him a horse.
What a bizarre reply...........sounds very UKIPy to me
What a bizarre reply...........sounds very UKIPy to me
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The end of labour?
Bruv;1501875 wrote: What a bizarre reply...........sounds very UKIPy to me
Yes, it would
Yes, it would