Voice of reason

No. Both Japan and Canada have fairly comprehensive fta's starting from a position of very little alignment, and have no pooled sovereignty. I'm just interested in why a jointly beneficial fta requires the pooling of sovereignty that we have engaged in so far.

In all of that, you jumped off the pooling of sovereignty in relation to free trade. How is that squared in the Japanese and Canadian examples?

Do you mean you used to see intellectual curiosity but don't anymore? If so, the biggest change factor is the internet. In many aspects of life, people expect things instantly, whether it's a pizza, an Amazon delivery or 'facts'.

Somebody who has the mentality to do that is a sick dangerous individual. Strict punishment in order.

Your comment: The issue is not whether education standards are better now or not - that can't be measured in what is taught and what is learned.  What is lacking now is intellectual curiosity Has led to that conclusion. I do like your description of facts and opinions btw. It would be well remembered by lots of people, in lots of fields.

Well that's fine. But your tirade against this country is hardly the inspiration to stay in an organisation you so vehemently support is it? I'm reminded of a documentary I watched about an abusive husband who constantly belittled his wife. She said she was going to leave him, and his criticism intensified, telling her how pathetic and useless she was, and she would be nothing without him. She left him.

You've convinced me what should be done.

How have the Japanese and Canadians reacted to the pooling of their sovereignty?

They've worked damn hard to build that enterprise up. Late nights, weekends the lot. Oh, hold on.....

They need to move on. There's enough over stuff to grill him on. He's proposing increasing the threshold for higher rate taxpayers for example. Is that really worth spending billions on?

There seems to be some reversal going on here. Often in this forum it's claimed that the younger generations tended to vote Remain, and the older generation voted to Leave. Now, if you are saying the younger generation are less intellectually curious, and therefore older ones more intellectually curious, would it not also hold true that this older Leave voters had been able to sort out good sources of information, whereas the younger Remainers hadn't?

EU rules and WTO rules are completely different things. WTO sets out general rules for countries to trade (i.e the whole world) unless they have their own trading agreements. The WTO don't have any product standards, or legislation that covers aspects of day-day life. Whether we should opt for a WTO option (ie no Deal) or go for an EU deal is a completely different matter, with pros and cons of both. I personally prefer an EU deal. But comparing the WTO and the EU is a misunderstanding completely.

Not the re-furb, but the total Royal cost is reported on Sky as £1.24 per person (not per taxpayer). Lots of costs can be wittled down to so much each. When their income is so vast, from wealth of dubious origin, there's no reason for the refurb to be publicly funded. Is there an option for just Kate and Meghan? 😜

I'm sure it's been mentioned before about the % of the electorate that leads to a government being formed? It's been done many times over the decades, and with a much lower number than voted in the referendum. Those governments have shut down industries, reformed the NHS and took us to war. Presumably that is also discredited too? I think you mentioned that before. 🙄 You always seem to miss the fact that everybody else knew the result was supposed to be implemented.

completely different organisations. Unless you are going to tell us what wto legislation we implement periodically??? I'm talking about the situation that has been for the last few decades, not what will happen if we left and asked to be re-admitted. Any democracy should expect its own government to implement laws required by its own electorate. Having that overruled by another body (and some people might like that over-ruling) is unnecessary and not what democracy should be about. I know we elect mep's blah de blah, to which the reply is we only have 10% in-line with our proportion of population etc etc etc.

This situation sounds very much to me like 'we don't like what our government is doing, we'll get another one to overrule it' . That is part of the whole issue. If the current government is doing something that is against the wishes of the electorate, they'll be out at the the next GE. If it is in line with what the electorate want, they'll probably stay in power. So, if you don't like what the government is doing, get them out, don't expect somebody else to implement it for you.

Maybe. I don't really care what any of them did 10,20, 30 years ago, within certain bounds, whether it be Gove, Boris or Corbyn. I find the concept of microscopically investigating peoples distant past a bit pointless, personally.

In terms of offside, I agree with the OP. The principle of offside is not giving yourself an adavantage over the defence. And to stop what, as kids, we called bog lining. The fact your toe is offside is irrelevant. I don't like attacking players standing offside near the goalie, and goals been given. Even if technically they aren't affecting play, I can't see how it isn't off-putting to the goalie. That is a way bigger advantage to the attacking team than being a toe in front. I'd use VAR after the event for diving, and faking offences much more. Issuing bans to stamp it out.

it depends on the topic. Gove taking coke is a criminal offence and needs discussing. Boris had a row with his girlfriend, and doesn't. If he'd been arrested, or there'd been an altercation where the Police had to be involved directly, then yes. He could say they had a big row, but anything more than that is personal. It seems more concerning that he is pulling out of debates.

Is the fact that the eu 'keeps a national government in check' part of the whole issue??? I don't like lots of things the tories do , and probably wouldn't like lots of things that Labour would do. BUT whoever it is, is the democratically elected government of this country. Being restricted by someone else isn't acceptable imo. What if a future far-right eu starts keeping legislation protecting minorities 'in check' ?

This country, and our economy is not akin to a scrap car. There's no point arguing the toss between each other when your view of the country is that.

Some facts are what they are, with no subtleties. Reporting otherwise is a plain lie. Other 'facts' are dressed in emotive language to change their impotance or scale. We see things like 'illegal immigrants flooding into the countery over the Channel' , 'Brexit wrecking the economy' . Both statements can have some element of fact but are phrased emotively to change the scale and resonse of the reader.

Why is that not useful? Perhaps understanding why people are dissilusioned is useful, and ovoids propogating a we-know-best atitude that has caused so many problems.

What an odd metaphor, do you really see this country as the scrap car, and the eu as the shiny new car dealership? What a low opinion you have of it, and us all.

We are dicussings facts and opinions concluded from facts and opinions concluded from events. That's where previously held views and previous experiences make different people reach different conclusions.