This exactly what I say when a tiresome remainer throws the 'you didn't know what you were voting for' jibe around at leave voters. Did a single remain voter vote for an EU wide army, harmonised taxes, harmonised policing, greater integration, Verhofstedt's giving up of further sovereignty, all to make the EU into an 'empire' as declared by some miserable little french official last week. An expansionist, imperialist, militarily growing would-be superpower on the borders of our Russian friends would, i fear go down badly in Moscow. Very badly. The current direction of the EU, for me, poses much greater threat of causing, and dragging the UK into war in Europe, than us leaving, and the EU reverting to a purely trade bloc would ever pose.
Me: Surely there is scope for substantial cuts in public spending.
Labour Supporter : Fascist, Nazi, Killing people, you want to privatise the NHS you fascist.
Next time that happens I'll just direct them to this page on the government website
Anti-Slavery Commissioner 140K a year-utterly ridiculous.
Thanks for taking the usual remain line of denigrating a Leave point of view. 16.1 million people voted remain. 17.4 million people voted leave. I wouldn't presume to speak for any on either side as to why they chose to vote one way or the other. Whether the points I made are cliches or not, they are in simple terms the reasons why I believe many people voted to leave. The simple facts are that Leave won a majority of the votes cast. That is the way democracy works. That is not going to change. I'll point you to another answer by merciantory as to partly why the EU is corrupt. There are several other reasons.
But not enough millions to outnumber the people who saw the rampant corruption, the undemocratic nature of the beast and the EU's quoted aim of ever closer union and decided that we would sooner forego those 'rights' we already have to avoid having any part of the EU experiment.
When you say 'if the cost of HS2 keeps inflating' ..............
What astounds me, given that a large part of the leave vote came from an electorate who felt ignored, and looked down on by the elites in Westminster, that the Prime Minster as the nominal leader of that elite, thinks the solution to that problem is to ignore and look down upon the electorate.
Retail rental is extortionate. Business rates are too high. Parking is a nightmare almost everywhere. When I see phrases like 'but the fundamentals remain unchanged. High Streets need to be effectively managed, carefully planned and have a clear vision for future development.' I immediately jump to local council planning meetings and endless discussion about what should be done without actually getting anything done. High Streets don't need that, they need to be nimble, quick to change to keep up with trends and local people with some connection to the people they are selling to need to be given some kind of advantage against the faceless national chains. Empty units if excess to requirements, ie are empty for more than say six months, should automatically get assumed permission to convert to housing. If they are empty for longer than a year, that should become compulsory..Until the over supply of retail units is tackled, and councils realise that putting parking prices up drives people away and a hundred other things are done, High Streets will continue to decline.
Well, I didn't actually suggest that she should abolish her job, rather that it should be abolished.
Sorry to say that nobody can convince me that borrowing money, then giving it away makes sound economic sense. She may be a leader in the making but the job she is doing now should be abolished. I'd be quite happy to commit 0.7% of our budget surplus, if and when any of the lunatics in Westminster work out that we cannot keep borrowing for ever and balance the budget.
Yes, I'm not arguing for stopping a campaign against it's use but to call it a 'war' on drugs, really isn't doing the job. If it is legalised, supply controlled, quality assured, and widely available, the first thing we would get from that would be hard evidence. How much is used by how many and what problems does it create. Then we can start the long process of making it socially less acceptable like the campaign against drink-driving, like the long campaign against smoking tobacco. While it's illegal, we have no control. When we have control, we can educate, we can legislate, we can isolate.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Invention