No Samuel - this is not boring. It is too important. Too many points made on this subject encourage confusion. We have to distinguish clearly between biological facts (which cannot be changed) and some people’s personal feelings and desires. The latter should be understood and respected but any idea of people simply deciding for themselves to adopt a different sex from their original biological one must be rejected. The idea that such change should have support in law is absurd.
Danny is right and all sane and rational people should support his view. This is a fundamental biological point. Encouraging confusion on sexuality is bound to cause great harm. If this campaign to abolish a key aspect of biology the consequences will be appalling. For a start no teachers should be allowed to promote this anti-science viewpoint. There is no room for compromise. Ideas about “gender” must not be allowed to undermine the fundamentals of biology. Teaching children otherwise does serious harm.
Most of the comments are right but I will probably still vote Conservative for 2 reasons. We will be better off with competent people like Ashley Fox elected. Unfortunately the awful EU voting system groups him with others less reliable. Secondly, looking ahead to the next General Election, in Cheltenham we need to ensure that Alex Chalk is voted in again.
But on the “deal” honesty is required about the real extent to which we would be a vassal state. The PM Has misled us about this. We need honesty. It must be changed.
If only the great majority of our politicians had not taken the side of the EU we would now be looking at a much better deal. The remain politicians have taken the EU side regardless of particular issues so they must accept “ever closer union” and all that entails, but have been careful to avoid saying what that would mean for us if we stayed in the EU - inevitably further more rapid steps to a United States of Europe. They also approve of EU measures to punish us as a form of persuasion. All this goes back to Treaties that Major and Blair pushed through the commons without explaining their implications properly to the voters. Such fundamental change should have required overwhelming public support as it was intended to be permanent. When the final version of the deal is offered it should be audited legally to show the real power balance between the EU on the one hand and parliament and voters on the other.
It would be tragic if the party did split. But we need to clarify what the remainers really want. If we were to recant on Brexit and opt for EU membership after all the EU would understandably expect us to commit to their integration project and ultimately be part of a United States of Europe. But those committed to a European state and gradual abolishion of the nation state should form a new “European Integration” party together with their Lib Dem and a few Labour friends. We would then see what support they could muster.
It would be tragic if the party did split. But we need to clarify what the remainers really want. If we were to recant on Brexit and opt for EU membership after all the EU would understandably expect us to commit to their integration project and ultimately be part of a United States of Europe, How much political power would these remainers want our parliament to retain? They always avoid being clear about this.
We should spend less time moaning about what is happening and plan to turn the tide of remaining. First a full analysis of the consequences of May’s plan is required. We need a clear statement of the powers that it removes from parliament or empowers the EU to over-rule. Could we even determine our own farming subsidies? At present all this is lost in a fog of confusion and annoyance. Secondly a very large sample survey should be carried out to determine how strongly the voters feel about powers in all the main policy areas - from taxation to Foreign policy being controlled by our government and parliament. Some remainers may be relaxed about power being transferred to the EU as that would limit Corbyn’s ability to implement his plans. General elections would also become pointless. Do we wish to be a democratic country or ruled from Brussels - that is the big question.
As Nick says TB did see himself as President of Europe and may well do so again. He would love to be able to claim the achievement of “bringing the UK back to the EU”. Having done that he would see himself as the natural choice. He could then talk to the President of the USA - whoever that was at the time1. But a United States of Europe would not be an - attractive option - with or without Blair
If we did reverse the referendum decision we would have to join the EUro and accept other vital steps to “ever closer union”. We would them effectively be trapped in a United States of Europe. Remainers remain from spelling this out as they know it would not have majority support. They want to drag us back into the nice EU without mentioning the integrationist consequences, pan-European government under the EU Commission and inevitable death of democracy.
After 2 wasted years “no confidence”. Also I no longer believe that the conservative MPs going against the vote are “behaving reasonably”. We need a strong campaign to prevent the government paying £40 Bn of our money to Brussels unless there is a good trade deal. IT MUST BE CONDITIONAL. We cannot accept that any deal is better than no deal. THe EU must understand this. Weaker positions are hopeless. The EU will try to insist that for reasonable trading arrangements to be agreed we should accept being ruled by them. Failure to rule this out decisively at the beginning was a dreadful failure. It is in the interests of all in Europe to have sensible trading arrangements - it is not a major concession to the UK. Also - weaponising the Irish border is disgraceful. And many if the Lords and elsewhere would still have us ruled by the dreadful EU.