When a political leader lies on their CV - can you trust them?
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Sovereignty and 'take back control'
(524 Posts)In view of developments in Parliament over the past few days, such as the 'Henry VII' clause in the Repeal Bill and moves to give the government a majority in House of Commons Select committees , I am wondering just what people who voted Leave understand by the concept of 'Sovereignty' and if they are at all worried by the Government's attempts to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation and amendments to legislation?
Primrose said "I don't understand how you can be against the Tory austerity policy but pro-EU, who have inflicted a harsher austerity policy on countries, even when they have democratically voted against it."
The EU told Greece they had to sort out their economy because they are part of the euro zone. It also gave great help to those parts of Greece that were hit worst by the 'corruption' in their business methods.
Here, austerity has been carried on unnecessarily for years as an excuse to dismantle the welfare state, quite a different thing.
I don't understand how people can be so agin the EU, when for the past 40 years we have had great input in how it works. And it does work.
The UK will end up as "Billy no mates" the way we are going .
If only people had engaged their brains about the possible difficulties we are going to now face, instead of believing all the crap spouted by some of our politicians.
Who will be working in our market garden agricultural industry picking the fruit and veg etc?
We are going to me paying through the nose on this decision for years to come.
I was remainder with some reservations.
Yes I did dj . I am sure millions of others thought the same. Easy to make speeches, but to actually turn it into action seems beyond them up to the present.
One of the least capable governments we have ever had, facing one of the most difficult problems we have ever had.
On This Week Andrew Neil caled it Florence and the Machine.
Whenever anybody mentions May going to Florence it always makes me think of the Magic Roundabout, with Boris as Dougal.
Faisal Islam reporting on Sky News has just said "The truth is there has been movement from the Brexit side. Why? As one cabinet minister put it "Brexit needs to be sustainable and it needs to work and be seen to work for young people otherwise they'll just reverse it within a decade or two.""
He sees a temporary soft Brexit won by businesses.
Good to know that the editor of Bloomberg agrees, though, isn't it, whitewave?
Gives you more faith in your opinions - at least it does me.
I am sure you wrote that before he did, as well.
That's what I think. Why ever does she have to do this stupid grandstanding.
They look so ridiculous all trooping off to Florence, except Fox- why not Fox? Then all trooping back again.
www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-21/may-s-message-should-be-to-britain-not-europe
The editor of Bloomberg thinks that she should give her speech here to us, not in Florence to the rest of Europe.
That is so right. gg Of course the EU and its structure has many faults. Britain, was always a strong voice and steered so much - we were instrumental in so many reforms and development including ironically Article 50.
I always had and still have many issues, but I am not so daft as to want to shoot myself along with the rest of the country in the foot.
The mythical sunny uplands of a post Brexit society is just that a myth.
It is off topic Maizie but it does show that so often the leavers on here think that everyone was either in or out with no nuance allowed for. My guess would be that about 10% were totally for out and 10% totally for in, it may even be 20% for each but that would leave with about 60% moving from the extremes to 'don't care and didn't vote' in the middle.
The idea that because we wanted to stay in the EU we thought it was perfect is ridiculous as is the idea that if you think anything was wrong with it you must want out.
I think that this poverty argument is just whataboutery.
The fact remains that being in the EU has brought the UK immense economic benefit and that by all but the most optimistic (which is held to be based on false premises) forecasts Brexit is going to make us much poorer.
And while we might think that 'austerity' is a discredited economic policy it has been mainstream economic thought for a number of years. Like enormous container ships, mainstream thought takes a long time to change direction.
And all the other EU countries are currently experiencing higher growth than the UK. Even Greece and Italy.
I don't understand how you can be against the Tory austerity policy but pro-EU, who have inflicted a harsher austerity policy on countries, even when they have democratically voted against it.
Poor friendly policy I meant - sorry
I think we're both short of evidence in terms of whether individual countries would have been better in or out - it's clearly impossible to show this. As for austerity not being a poor friendly possible, well that's exactly the line that the Conservatives have promoted since 2010 - that austerity will make everything better for the poor eventually. Don't you believe that?
That's fine maryeliza - we can agree that it's your opinion and it's not based on any evidence.
I can't just look at the EU and say it's been great for 'our poor' but those 'other poor' have been totally screwed. My opinion is that the EU has been active in promoting austerity in several countries and making it a condition of financial help. That's not a 'poor friendly' policy.
The FT article provides some hard positive facts about the growth in countries in Central and Eastern Europe since joining the EU. Most of those countries started from such a low base that it is clearly obvious that joining the EU couldn't possibly be like waving a magic wand - it will take time for all the benefits to produce results.
How has the EU helped them dj?
Carry on Primrose list all the countries that would have been better off if they had not joined - the problem is, as it is with my assertion, that we can't provide that sort of evidence. I stand by my UK examples however and the fact that £114m would do nothing in the countries Petra mentioned. As it happens, I think that the Parliament shouldn't move now - as do many others. The reasoning behind the decision to start with was understandable but the need for those political sensibilities has long expired. The fact that it still does move is not a valid argument against the EU
50 million children living in poverty in Eastern Europe.
Just over £2 each. Really useful to their parents.
Apologies - the link hasn't worked because of the paywall. Maybe that helps explain why we don't get links to the Times, FT and Telegraph - the Guardian really steal a march there don't they by not charging ( at the moment at least)
It's a really poor argument that tries to say an exception means a basic point is not true.
I couldn't agree more!
I'm not sure the Italians would agree with you.
I'm not sure the Irish would agree with you.
How many more 'exceptions' shall I list?
What makes you think that 'overall the poor have benefitted'?
www.ft.com/content/ba1301c0-4c54-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b
Recent article from that left wing bible the FT on growth in central and Eastern Europe. It takes a long time for growth to be translated into such things as better housing and other aspects of infrastructure. £114m - how exactly would that help?
The complex example of Greece does not disprove that - overall the poor have benefitted. It's a really poor argument that tries to say an exception means a basic point is not true.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »