Has the Conservative Party lost all sense of competence

I too worry about incompetence in both major parties, and feel politically homeless in that neither party supports an exit from Brexit.

Nigglynellie and Bridgeit so true. Agree with you both.

Really angry about latest in East Coast Line fiasco. After winning the franchise for the once again profitable East Coast line once it was in public ownership, Virgin is being bailed out and let off most of its commitment for the next few years at a great cost to taxpayer, Even though, that commitment was what won it the franchise in the first place.
Lesson to be learnt, bid as much as you like, you won’t be held to it.
But the latest? They may be allowed to bid for the franchise again, when it comes to an end! You couldn’t make it up!
Quote below from The Guardian.
‘Announcing increased group profits on Wednesday, the transport company said it also expects to be given further direct awards, without competition, to continue operating two more franchises – East Midland and West Coast – after 2019.’
www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/06/stagecoach-hopes-retain-east-coast-rail-despite-bailout

Niggly, you do realise this is a thread about Tory incompetence, don't you?

europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/founding-fathers_en

This is the first mention of it, and it was Churchill who wanted it.

Just done a search for the federal states of Europe, and the first two pages are all articles from the rightwing press, trying to scare people into thinking that there might be one.
DM, Telegraph, Express, Breitbart, all repetitive.
Not a single article from any decent source that I would want to read.

Bridgeit, I'm afraid that unless you read the Guardian newspaper your opinions on here are worthless. It's extraordinary that it would appear that this newspaper is the only outlet for the truth and every other source of information immediately dismissed as lies and falsehoods. As no one has the crystal ball, (not even the Guardian!!) the truth is that no one can absolutely say with total confidence what the future holds. We all have our own opinions even without the help of the media, and it would be lovely to discuss these, perhaps putting a different perspective on other opinions, even talk them through, without the aggressive attitude that you refer to. We all know this will never happen, and I think this is why certain people end up talking amongst themselves and preaching to the converted!

So, niggly, you did not vote FOR free movement of labour in the first referendum. The only referendum we had was 1975, which was about staying in or getting out of the European Community.
That was the only question in the referendum, the same as this one - one question, a yes or no vote, and you voted for or against everything that you had been told.
The 1975 referendum was only advisory, too.

When we went into the EC, it was Ted Heath who took us in on a parliamentary vote, no referendum.

Reading through this thread again, & having added my own comments about the hostility,rudeness & arrogance I have come to the conclusion that there are one or two dominant posters who disregard any opinion that they deem to be less intellectual, informed than there own. There in lies the problem, because it stifles the free flow of thoughts , perhaps these posters should private message each other so that they don't have to have their minds challenged by any wider /differing view point than there own.

I thought long and hard about the referendum. The thought of being part of a federal state was, as I think I've made clear is what persuaded me. I'm not discussing it any more in the interests of not being shouted at, derided and generally put down.

nigglynellie, you are joking here, right?!?

American states are very different but they are all Americans, speaking the same language, similar culture, similar history,

Did the original membership of the EEC involve free movement of people? I thought that was part of the introduction of the Single Market in the 1980s. An initiative masterminded by the Thatcher government.

Also, interestingly, the other EU countries wanted free movement to be phased in over a period of time but Thatcher insisted on introducing it immediately.

WRT the article I posted, is the very logical argument that few EU countries are interested in an EU 'superstate' because they are fiercely protective of, and don't want to diminish, their own sovereignty, worthy of consideration?

By the way, aren't you being rather rude and hostile to me there, niggly?
No surprise there, then.

Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?

Question on the original 1975 referendum.

I didn't ignore and didn't think I misunderstood you.

Did you actually vote for free movement of people, in the original referendum, niggly?

I was referring to the original referendum in which I enthusiastically voted to join the Common Market Maizie, but dj often chooses to, or perhaps genuinely misunderstands what some of us say, so no surprise there!
People have, again and again given their reasons for voting the way they did, Ages ago one person (name forgotten) in particular explained in great detail how she felt that this country would fair better outside the EU. Naturally she was ridiculed and sneered at and hasn't posted since! Why would she? Why would anyone bother when all you receive in the way of conversation is hostility, accusation and rudeness?!

I think nellie was referring to the 1975 referendum when she said 'in the first place', dj

The comments on that article are, as usual, interesting. Once again Leavers are unable to explain how leaving the EU will materially benefit the UK.

By the way, that sounds very selfish....I want...

Most people voted against free movement of people.
Immigration was the greatest cause of people voting Brexit.
If you think it's all about democracy, then you can't have what you voted for in the first place, and why should you?

I want exactly what I voted for in the first place, which is free trade and free movement of people, no more, no less. American states are very different but they are all Americans, speaking the same language, similar culture, similar history, same with former German states. Europe has individual countries, they speak different languages have very different cultures and histories. In a future federation in this could imo cause serious problems.

As for the USA- anyone who has travelled a lot in nthe US will see what massive differences and identities - Arizona is totally different to Massachussets, Alabama to Washington State, Colorado to New Mexico, etc, etc. Each with their own laws on a massive variety of things, including huge issues like the death penalty, assisted Dying, and so much more. Just like Switzerland, but on a different scale. To compete with such a massive entity, on so many levels, and to keep us safe- we can keep our own identity and local laws- but we do need a united front- and a Single Market and Customs Union. I must say I find it very difficult to see how so many people don't see and understand that.

A bit like we have just had on here Maizie. If you say it as a truth people will believe it is a truth. Those of us who actually do want to make our decisions against truth an reality must keep clarifying what that actually is. Thank you for posting that.

I saw this posted on twitter today

A Letter To Leave Supporters

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/leave-supporters_b_17699668.html?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

It has this to say about 'ever closer union

Ever closer union? A United States of Europe? Some enthusiastic politicians in Europe might be happy with that vision, most others are not. It was a slogan that was popular a few years ago, and was even written into the treaty, but its relevance has faded since. The UK has no obligation to support 'ever closer union' and never will have. Most other countries in the EU are passionately keen to retain their sovereignty as it now exists. If you go to France, it is still very French. If you go to Italy, it is still Italian. If you go to Britain, it is still British, and always will be. On the other hand, if some countries such as Belgium and Holland want to have a 'closer union' within the EU, why shouldn't they? It won't affect us.

I have pointed out before that other EU countries are unlikely to want to lose their sovereignty but this is, of course, ignored. However, given the democratic makeup of the EU and individual country's wish for sovereignty it's most unlikely to happen. But it sure made a potent scare story...

Also, re Juncker:

Who elects the head of the Commission? The 28 heads of government elect one every five years. At present is it J.C. Juncker. He is a controversial figure who likes to make controversial public statements which the media love to quote. But he is not the 'dictator' of the EU, he is just the head of the EU's civil service. Do you know who is the head of the UK's civil service? Probably not, but if he were as publicity-seeking as Juncker you probably would!

It says a quite a lot else, too, but I don't suppose any Leavers will read it...

Fair enough, and as said, I disagree. BTW exactly what Scotland and Wales always say.

Interesting though, because so many leavers admire countries like Switzerland and the USA- which both work as you describe. We have national laws, Cantonal Laws and local laws and infrastructure. 4 different languages and very different cultural backgrounds - my part being very French/Latin influenced, the East being Germanic, the South Italian. It is a bit of a balancing act at times- but I can assure you that gloablisation and the influence to rich expats- is much more of a threat to identity than being Federate.

Thank you Jura2. I just wanted to make clear that my reasons for voting the way I did had nothing to do with immigration, homophobia, or anything of that nature, but purely for the reason I have stated. I am fearful of what the end game is in the future for the EU and don't want my grandchildren to be embroiled in something I could have helped prevent.