PaulAA

Rob I could set out the factual errors in your summary, but I think I'd just be doing it for my own benefit. I admit that I'm an avowed Remainer, because I believe that, flawed as it is, the EU does a pretty good job in offsetting the pendulum swings of national politics and providing a trading environment that unifies tariffs and regulations in the world's biggest single market. It has also done far more for the UK than any party political govt has ever done to stimulate regional growth and infrastructure. Three cheers for 'our' sort of democracy. So much misinformation has been spread - and a lot of it repeated in this thread - that truth has become almost irrelevant. Also almost irrelevant is that the referendum was flawed, tainted and fundamentally ill-conceived. I honestly don't believe that a second referendum (whether it is given a confrontational title like 'People's Referendum' or not) will repair the damage that has been done. I also don't believe that it will achieve a meaningful result. You have a system of democracy and 650 MPs to deliver not you want, but what they conclude is best for you. All the referendum achieved was to provide a cloak of public opinion for these 'representatives' to hide behind and convince themselves that they are fulfilling The Wish of the People. It could have been handled differently, to be a less abrupt and less damaging process, but we have David Cameron to thank for that. The one glimmer of hope is that he will face retribution, if not in this life, then in the next, for the damage he has done to Britain for a generation to come. As of this evening, it appears that you are in the hands of the DUP again. A small religious faction on the fringe of British politics will decide the fate of the country. I can only wish you well. Paul

Repetition does not make something true. In what way is the combination of no direct election of cabinet, PM, HoL, Head of State and Civil Service make the UK model more democratic than the European one?

John Now you are taking the comment out of context and overlooking - intentionally or otherwise - my previous posts on the subject. Excusing a misrepresentation with 'they all did it' is not a good enough reason, although it does seem that British politics is increasingly characterised by the lowest common denominator. Paul

Erm... yes it did, just not all of the USD 3.9billion that Denis Healey had negotiated. Ref here. The conflation of the two statements was intended to deceive. And serial liar Farage stated on record on 9th June 2016 that the money would be spent on the NHS (despite his post-referendum back-tracking). However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, how was the Red Bus statement meant to be read by Joe Public? Paul

The point I've been trying to make. People - rightly - complain about the appalling quality, behaviour and intentions of politicians, yet accept the most opaic and disingenuous of them as their moral compass. Rees-Mogg, for one, has a fund structure and strategy that is netting him a fortune by betting against Britain's future prosperity. Where's the public service and altruism in that?

Rob Of course it's nonsense, but so is the claim that the ridiculous and self-defeating Project Fear was the main source of misinformation. Neither 'official' side has anything to be proud about - surely you can't deny that Leave paraded some pretty unsupportable claims and predictions. Which is why there ought to be some accountability amongst the political class. I wonder how much public expenditure has been directed away from essential services in the UK to finance the preparations for B=Day, in all its various scenarios. We can only speculate, because that will surely be concealed and the truth obfuscated. Paul

Absolutely, Rob. £350m a week more for the NHS. We'll trade with the world. The easiest deal in the world to agree. We'll take back control. Business will boom. All true, of course. And Russia financed it, without it costing British taxpayers a bean! Result!

Translations notwithstanding, FedEx delivered the throttle control from Milwaukee to Warsaw in less than four days, including a weekend. Ordered Thursday evening, delivered Monday morning. Not bad, I'd say. So the throttle part arrived sooner than the Zippo lighter and the Jeep is therefore back on the road, scorch-mark free. For now...

Dave I'm sorry - I had my tongue in my cheek. But it crossed my mind that there may be a way forward with the unity that the hard Brexit leaders are (were?) calling for. Bearing in mind that a lot of them have a vested financial interest in the process - Rees-Mogg, Farage, Dyson, Johnson, Gove and Banks (and his Russian handlers) - why not follow good business practice and have them offer a personal guarantee of the outcome? After all, toe rag politicians everywhere precipitate enormous change on a near-daily basis and the worst that can happen to them is that they are asked to resign. No comeback, no liability. So, a guarantee. Nothing too onerous, of course. Much as I'd like to propose testicles or entire wedding tackles on the block, I think that's too emotional and perhaps the personal guarantee from, say, the twelve (since dozen is a good British numeral) leading figures could be that they will stake their entire family fortunes on the success of the outcome. If, five years after B-Day, the UK's GDP growth is more than 5% behind the EU average, they lose everything. Every penny, possession, thread they own. The lot. I don't think that's unreasonable. After all, the rest of the country is taking a huge leap into the dark and somebody needs to be underwriting it. Paul Edit: Nick's post reminded me of two very important contributors to the guarantee fund: Paul Dacre and the Dirty Digger, Rupert Murdoch. Every penny.

Dave Okay, I'll rise to the bait - your response suggests that the referendum question was too complicated for a fair proportion of the electorate, unable to distinguish between uncontrolled immigration (very much a home-grown political problem) and free movement (from which the UK has - and continues to - benefit) Paul

I really must do some work... But, in the meantime, this amused me: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/13/twitter-ordered-to-reveal-user-behind-parody-jd-wetherspoon-account The legal defence for the spoof twitterer sounds like a very worthy cause to support! Paul

Alan Greece... I might climb on another of my hobby horses and wax lyrical about the disgraceful, despicable involvement of Goldman Sachs in the deception that led to Greek involvement in the Euro. Lies, damn lies and banking statistics. I'm no fan of the Euro and I understand the iniquities it has produced, but there is a real danger in conflating the ills of the Euro with the strengths that the EU provides. As I rattled on about previously, whether the UK is in the EU or not, the impact of a (theoretical) collapse of the Euro will be more or less the same on the UK. I'm really unclear where the belief that the EU is less democratic than the UK comes from. It isn't. It just suits Jacob Rees-Mogg & co. to portray it that way right now. As for the immigrant camps in Dover... there are lots of us Brits working in the EU . But surely the only difference after B-Day will be that, instead of allowing the free movement of economically productive immigrants, you will be letting in - dare I say it - non-contributing immigrants instead, no? Likewise, a very Happy Christmas to you and yours. Paul

I know the feeling, Darren. I had a stand-up row with a sub-contractor on site once, when I still had the A5. Foolishly, it was parked close to the site compound and, when I returned from the site inspection, 'somebody' had carelessly dragged a key nor screwdriver around every lower panel - wings, boot & both doors. Remarkably, I had managed to park in the only part of the car park not covered by security cameras. Another coincidence! Paul

Peter Surely I'm misreading something - you're not advocating that the UK reverts to an isolationist, agrarian society as the facility for exiting EU membership, are you? As Richard pointed out earlier, the EU is forcing much wider-ranging environmental protection legislation than the UK alone would ever consider. I fear that an 'independent' UK under the current govt would be focused first and foremost on easing legislation to appease its major sponsors (fossil fuels, chemicals, pharma, production, distribution). I cannot foresee circumstances in which the UK's performance and behaviour would improve its environmental responsibility. Paul