Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua
Does seem odd that people are happy to support a result, when even the source of the £8 million donation by Aaron Banks is still unknown. A referendum that legally had to be advisory rather than binding in order to get the ballot past the judiciary.
|
People were unhappy with the EU long before any hint of a referendum. That was the reason for the referendum.
In a court, only a jury can give a not guilty verdict, but in some instances the Judge can direct the jury to give a not guilty verdict. It should be seen as a similar situation where only Parliament is allowed to make the final decision, but in the event of a referendum it's hands are tied. Has there ever been the slightest hint that the result of a previously held referendum wouldn't be respected?
---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth
It all depends on your viewpoint/definition of a 'disaster'.
To some people, a disaster is having to pay 30p more for a bottle of wine, needing a visa to travel abroad, or seeing a shortage of broccoli at Christmas.
To others, disaster is seeing your town decimated by the local industries/factories closing and re-opening in a country where the labour and costs are much cheaper.
I think previous Governments have a lot to answer for, and many 'leave' voters were probably of a mind where being in the EU was already a 'life changing' disaster for them and their families/community
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or wishing to start more silly arguements involving statistics, JLR, Dyson et al. Just saying that for some people a fresh start probably gives them better hope for the future than continuing in a downward spiral.
---------- Post added at 10:45 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------
*apparently* when we bomb out of the EU we won't have any trade deals, so there should be a surplus of available ships  |
So even contractors currently without any ships would be able to obtain one? What is the difference?