On 08/11/2016 15:36, Graeme Wall wrote:

What makes you think I care about being British?

So presumably you don't?

The whole point of Brexit is that a lot of us DO care about being
British, to the extent that we would really like to govern ourselves
again, rather than be ruled by a foreign power.

Can you imagine the United States being told what to do by an American
Union based in Guatemala?

Peter

On 08/11/2016 16:58, Peter wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:36, Graeme Wall wrote:

What makes you think I care about being British?

So presumably you don't?

Not the discredited narrow-minded, bigoted version of being British
currently being marketed, no.


The whole point of Brexit is that a lot of us DO care about being
British, to the extent that we would really like to govern ourselves
again, rather than be ruled by a foreign power.

What foreign power? Or are you imitating the SNP with its pretence that
Westminster is a foreign power?


Can you imagine the United States being told what to do by an American
Union based in Guatemala?


No but I can imagine Britain being told what to do by the USA, after all
we always have done.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:

And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?

People often forget that Britain (well, England) is unique in not having
a way of life. After all, it is just "normal", while everything else is
exciting and "other" in comparison.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 08/11/2016 18:27, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:

And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?

People often forget that Britain (well, England) is unique in not having
a way of life. After all, it is just "normal", while everything else is
exciting and "other" in comparison.


Just as everyone else has accents and are natives.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/11/2016 18:57, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 18:27, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:

And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?

People often forget that Britain (well, England) is unique in not having
a way of life. After all, it is just "normal", while everything else is
exciting and "other" in comparison.


Just as everyone else has accents and are natives.

I find that travelling to places like Germany, Scandinavian and
Scotland, there is a perception amongst a surprising number of the kind
of people one meets in pubs that England does indeed lack natives. This
leads to some strange assumptions, particularly with regard to life in
contemporary London...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Guy Gorton" wrote

Thanks you for a considered response to my very simplified statement.
I could not and will not try to respond to all your points but will
just say that I signed up to the Common Market - and still would - but
not to a political union with countries and political systems that
have little in common with ours.

A similar answer was given by a car worker in Sunderland.

So on the face of it, since Norway and Switzerland have rejected political
union, a similar mini-Brexit to retain zero tariffs, freedom of business
establishment, and free movement of labour just like them would be
acceptable.

Gets rid of the Common Agricultural policy and the Common Fisheries Policy
too.

The problem is that the majority of Brexit voters wanted something more. But
the majority of all voters might well vote for mini-Brexit in Yet Another
Referendum or in a General Election.


--
Mike D

In message , at 21:06:43 on Tue, 8 Nov
2016, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:

since Norway and Switzerland have rejected political union, a similar
mini-Brexit to retain zero tariffs, freedom of business establishment,
and free movement of labour just like them would be acceptable.

On one hand they don't have all the free tariffs, on the other hand they
have to comply with European Directives without having had a say in
their drafting.
--
Roland Perry

On 08/11/2016 12:05, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).


I suspect that those who prepared the wording of the act (David Cameron
etc) could not conceive that the British people would vote for Brexit.
Hence they did not bother to consider if a binding element should be
included.

Colin

On 08/11/2016 15:58, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:48, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:37:59 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:05:45 +0000, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it
being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could
have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM
advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is
only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because
"advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in
practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975,
Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish
independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Cameron promised to "implement what [we] decide" but then resigned
instead. Ball is now in May's
court.

We had a civil war in the 1640s. There was unrest in later
centuries to reform the franchise. In
1910 the House of Lords had to be faced down, and suffragettes broke
windows, chained themselves to
railings and one died in a spectacular way under the King's horse at
a race meeting. The Remoaners
had better be careful about provoking conflict today.


Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

Not a threat, a warning of the likely consequences of overturning a
clear democratic vote.


That's a threat in anybody's language.

Oxford dictionary definition of threat:
"A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other
hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

The above does not meet the threat definition

Colin

ColinR wrote:
On 08/11/2016 12:05, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).


I suspect that those who prepared the wording of the act (David Cameron
etc) could not conceive that the British people would vote for Brexit.
Hence they did not bother to consider if a binding element should be
included.

Yes, I think that's right. He only agreed to the referendum to get UKIP and
the Tory rightwing off his back. He never expected to lose.