Brexit and all that shite .... | Page 9 | Vital Football

Brexit and all that shite ....

craig214 said:
If you dont understand simple points thats your problem, if you do understand them and pretend not to, that again is your problem.

Either way neither are my problem.

Trying to be clever doesnt suit you
Click to expand...

oh i do understand simple points mate. its the only tipe you can make.

oh. and trying to look stupid sort of suits you.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
Who's view do you want them to represent, the majority.
Click to expand...

Surely they should be representing the voters who put them there. The ones who took the time to go to the polling booths and cast their votes.[/QUOTE]

So who represents the voters who didnt vote for the MP but for the parties that lost, or the people that didnt or couldnt vote?

Children, the sick and homeless aka the vulnerable
 
Hampton said:
:whist:

Not at all notts - more than able to weigh up both sides of any argument and arrive at my own individual conclusion.
Following this forum and my prior you will see I am a trad labour mon, not a Tory and certainly not a mail / sun reader.
I despair rather than be cynical about the blinkered views held by those on both sides.
Shouldn't bite but your original entrenched statement of views reflects why we are on the edge of losing the democracy we all claim to support.
Click to expand...

What democracy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
moonay said:
The two big flaws with your argument KDZ are that as independents, MPs would probably be more susceptible to being "influenced". Lets face it, local council elections are probably more akin to what you describe, yet on numerous occasions, we hear of them (from all sides) being involved in dodgy dealings.........and secondly, if all candidates were independent, its unlikely that you'd agree with everything they stand for. At some point, you have to choose a "best match" ...... same as with the party system.

NB: I know the above is a blanket statement, and I don't mean to paint all independent MPs, or local councillors with the same brush.
Click to expand...

About corruption that is literally what happens now with all politicians they are all taking money from someone and being lobbied either by legal donations directly or via the party or in promises for when they leave office to be hooked up with a nice job. Trade unions, corporations, rich individuals or in some cases even foreign governments or organisations such as the EU are giving people money our current political system is riddled with vested interests in one way or another on all sides. There will always be corrupt people trying to game the system there is no way to remove all risk of this but in my suggestion a all local mps would be on their own with no party machinery to mop up their mess, party loyalty to hide their sins or safe seat to hide behind they are drastically more vulnerable to being ousted than current mps. They would have to tread much more carefully than they currently do. Do you think the likes of Keith Vaz or Liam Fox who have both appeared in the papers with money and expense scandals would have been re-elected if they were not in party safe seats? You mention about local council meetings that is exactly the point, the suggestion would be to marry up the local mayor, council and mp as much as possible to give clear accountability, direct communication rather than currently were were they effectively don't always align. Also along the lines of finance that would be another thing i would change complete transparency id make it so only individual campaign donations are legal and only up to a certain amount id ban lobbying all together. As we only need in the proposed system the MPs represent their local interests of the people corporations or unions should have their current influence avenues stopped. The idea is making it so performance is the thing we judge sitting MPs on and not how they can currently outspend every independent candidate so heavily on campaigning.

Regarding disagreeing on various points that is inevitable but at the moment safe seats, 3 line whips and party politics mean we pretty much elect MPs knowing whatever they say during elections they will most likely follow orders from the Westminister London bubble leadership. We already know party manifestos are largely worthless and it's harder to punish your local mp when they aren't calling their own shots. Under my suggested changes people would have to decide who represented them best and there would need to be compromises and give and take but it would be directly with the MP and their constituents and no party to muddy the waters or act as an excuse. You see it all the time MPs going on tv defending things they clearly dont believe for the sake of towing the party line - that would be gone and they could speak more honest and openly.

Also the removal of parties would make collaboration easier as good ideas would get voted through no matter who suggested them and bad ideas would be voted down easily - unlike now where majorities and whips mean votes are mostly down to political asthmatic rather than on the proposals actual merit.

The current system is a duopoly that serves everyone except the people it is meant to and it needs to be replaced root and branch. I think there is no such thing as a perfect or fool proof system but what I've suggested would likely be better than what we have now.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
For once I think we have a point we can agree on Notts. The referendum vote should not have included old farts like me. Whatever the outcome it is unlikely to have much effect on the remaining time I have. I voted leave, however I do understand younger people wanting to remain as for some of them they have never known a life outside the EU. It is probably the same feeling for them as it was for me when we voted to go into the common market all those years ago. There is trepidation about what the future holds just as I had when we went in, however what there wasn't then was project fear. The media and politicians are whipping people in to a frenzy with a new disaster story appearing every day. There will be winners and losers whichever way we eventually go but in the end we will get through it and whether there is a pot of gold or a crock of shit at the end of the rainbow we will deal with it the way we have dealt with all the other things that government have landed us with over the years.
Click to expand...

I think everyone should have the opportunity to share their views, no matter their age. However, I don't think a referendum was the best way of sorting this issue out in the first place......way to complex. People just brought their prejudices with them to the voting booth, both young and old. Our problems with the EU should have been resolved with our EU partners in my opinion.
 
pies'r'us said:
My family's roots are in ireland and we talk regualry to some who are still there. Thay say that most people in their towns aren't bothered and the border issue doesn't worry them one little bit. I've just heard a gent from Ireland on LBC and he also said similar but he was concerned about getting a green card to go over the border fro cheap fuel..
Click to expand...

Ireland has really prospered from being in the EU as a fully committed member state. The UK has never been fully committed to it.....that's been the problem.
 
moonay said:
KDZ. See my response to MiW. The whole point is that they were initially down to remain..... but their voters predominantly ignored that policy, leaving them conflicted.

Agreeing to abide by a referendum decision isn't the same as policy.
Click to expand...

If you agree to something then seek election on that basis then it is policy. Unless you fail and then change said policy.
 
nottinghamlatic said:
I think everyone should have the opportunity to share their views, no matter their age. However, I don't think a referendum was the best way of sorting this issue out in the first place......way to complex. People just brought their prejudices with them to the voting booth, both young and old. Our problems with the EU should have been resolved with our EU partners in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Cameron was the latest to try and was rebuffed. The consequence of that was we are now leaving. Most likely leaving without a deal and now the same aloof EU who ignored such attempts to resolve issues are shitting themselves. You reap what you sow.
 
craig214 said:
Was it in the interests of democracy for Boris Johnson to lie his way through the leave campaign?
80 Million turks will come to Britain if we stay in europe
Nhs and the money nonsense etc..

View attachment 30879
Click to expand...

rite. show us the link were he said that 80 milleon turks will come to brit.

now get your arris down the shop and buy a lottery ticket. cos your another one of them that have oviously traveled back from the future. just checked my watch and todays date is 18 jan 19. acording to time in are world we havent left the eu yet. so how can you sey we wont pay it when we do leeve. unless you are a time traveler. or a fortune teller. or as you keep proving. just making another stupid remark.

see living in aus its hard to keep up with whats going on heer cos the govt has comited to giving the nhs another 20billeon. about 395 milleon a week. and we havent even left yet.

stop while your behind craig
 
nottinghamlatic said:
The basic point is right, though, no matter how callous it seems. Demographically, the under 40's were and are much more likely to vote remain. So, as the older voters who voted in the last election die off, the proportion of leave voters is bound to decline. Consequently, if another glorified opinion poll were to be held this year, remain would be the likely outcome. Remember, two and a half years have now elapsed since the first opinion poll. Time changes everything.

Referendums are so ridiculous....so undemocratic.
Click to expand...
I can agree with the referendums point fair play.
However by your argument people who have turned 40 since the vote will have also changed into leavers - it's about more life experience growing up and having responsibilities will shift their view from one of youthful exuberance.
In my late teens I once voted WRP - remember them ? My 18 year old self was a naive prat and Jez wants 16 year olds to have a say.
Voting should be raised to 21 if not 25
 
BrickLatic said:
rite. show us the link were he said that 80 milleon turks will come to brit.

now get your arris down the shop and buy a lottery ticket. cos your another one of them that have oviously traveled back from the future. just checked my watch and todays date is 18 jan 19. acording to time in are world we havent left the eu yet. so how can you sey we wont pay it when we do leeve. unless you are a time traveler. or a fortune teller. or as you keep proving. just making another stupid remark.

see living in aus its hard to keep up with whats going on heer cos the govt has comited to giving the nhs another 20billeon. about 395 milleon a week. and we havent even left yet.

stop while your behind craig
Click to expand...

Im very glad you are happy with the government you have and happy you believe you wasnt misled. So you think when Boris Johnson said there are 76 million turks about to join the EU he wasnt attempting to draw a comparison between other east European citizens 'flooding''to Britain with the potential for another few million, be it 80 million 76 million or a few million.

Its scare mongering, its how they won the vote. Play on peoples fears. It worked

As for the NHS money, they have failed to invest for years and years, no pay rise for NHS workers for years no investment in hospital equipment people, they money they have put in is what it needed due to the neglect it has suffered, all they are doing is putting in the money they neglected to do.
Austerity was never needed it was to make them look sensible and trustworthy with the economy, in their, comparison with the "freespending irresponsible labour party''

They fooled a few obviously
As for showing you a link id rather show you my arris
 
Hampton said:
I can agree with the referendums point fair play.
However by your argument people who have turned 40 since the vote will have also changed into leavers - it's about more life experience growing up and having responsibilities will shift their view from one of youthful exuberance.
In my late teens I once voted WRP - remember them ? My 18 year old self was a naive prat and Jez wants 16 year olds to have a say.
Voting should be raised to 21 if not 25
Click to expand...

Maybe, there ought to be some kind of qualifying test before a vote. For example, the EU referendum would include written and oral questions, such as what is the SEM, what is a market, what is Customs Union, explain CAP, and so on......70% and you can vote. Also, a person's affiliations to extreme political groups, both left and right would have to be declared.

I've known 14 year olds with a better grasp of issues than 75 year olds, but others who have no knowledge or understanding at all. Where would you draw the line?
 
nottinghamlatic said:
Maybe, there ought to be some kind of qualifying test before a vote. For example, the EU referendum would include written and oral questions, such as what is the SEM, what is a market, what is Customs Union, explain CAP, and so on......70% and you can vote. Also, a person's affiliations to extreme political groups, both left and right would have to be declared.

I've known 14 year olds with a better grasp of issues than 75 year olds, but others who have no knowledge or understanding at all. Where would you draw the line?
Click to expand...
It's currently drawn at 18 and if you start going down the intelligence route well we end up with.
"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"
It's an age line and above it the value of a professionals vote is the same as a road sweepers and rightly so.
My point was about life experience not IQ and that in my own reflection at 18 I had not a clue about it.
 
craig214 said:
Im very glad you are happy with the government you have and happy you believe you wasnt misled. So you think when Boris Johnson said there are 76 million turks about to join the EU he wasnt attempting to draw a comparison between other east European citizens 'flooding''to Britain with the potential for another few million, be it 80 million 76 million or a few million.

Its scare mongering, its how they won the vote. Play on peoples fears. It worked

As for the NHS money, they have failed to invest for years and years, no pay rise for NHS workers for years no investment in hospital equipment people, they money they have put in is what it needed due to the neglect it has suffered, all they are doing is putting in the money they neglected to do.
Austerity was never needed it was to make them look sensible and trustworthy with the economy, in their, comparison with the "freespending irresponsible labour party''

They fooled a few obviously
As for showing you a link id rather show you my arris
Click to expand...
Craig have you and your arris forgotten about the government propaganda leaflet paid for by taxes, the widely spun immediate economic meltdown and the threat of Russian bombers and ww3spouted by Cameron, Osborne, Carney and supported by our national broadcaster ?
For sure leave told porkies, both sides were as bad as each other.
As I suggested earlier it's about taking a balanced not a fundamentalist view
 
nottinghamlatic said:
Ireland has really prospered from being in the EU as a fully committed member state. The UK has never been fully committed to it.....that's been the problem.
Click to expand...

"In 2016, Ireland became a net contributor to the EU Budget for the first time since it joined the bloc in 1973 with the State paying in more than it received in grants and payments." = from the irish times. sometimes i can copy and paste

dont get me started on there curent contributeons. yeah theyve prospered. after going neerly bankrupt and living off the back of are generous payements into there coffers via the eu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.