News0 min ago
Who On Earth Elected May?
She’s like having found an angry pregnant opossum under your kitchen table who doesn’t want to leave but one things for sure, you’re going to make if leave.
https:/
She’s tired, old, haggard and just not up for the job or any pm job.
I wanted a vibrant young fighter in our corner not this miserable bag lady past her sellby date.
Brexit is going to be her crusifiction, mark my words.
Good riddance to old rubbish is what I say.
https:/
She’s tired, old, haggard and just not up for the job or any pm job.
I wanted a vibrant young fighter in our corner not this miserable bag lady past her sellby date.
Brexit is going to be her crusifiction, mark my words.
Good riddance to old rubbish is what I say.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Minkyme. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Look, stop it with the wise cracks, eh. You’re better than that. There is only discontent because the leave vote meant we had to...Erm....leave the EU. That’s an inescapable fact. To deny that’s the basis of the current mess and somehow spin it to be remain voter’s fault is self delusion of the highest order.
I can see why you’re such a big fan of Trump. Your mind seems to work in a very similar vein.
What was that word you used....oh yeah....ludicrous.
I can see why you’re such a big fan of Trump. Your mind seems to work in a very similar vein.
What was that word you used....oh yeah....ludicrous.
Let me put it this way. One reason I did not vote Leave was because I thought this unholy mess would be an outcome.
It’s interesting, reading the responses, to imagine what the situation would’ve been had the result been 52:48 for Remain. I think I can say with some confidence that the country would not have got behind it. And with good reason.
I was hoping for an even tighter 50.1:49.9 Remain result. I expect that would have resulted in another referendum within 5 years, not the whole country getting behind the decision.
The problems we have are twofold- the public and the Parliament.
Among the public, the outcome was not 52:48 but 37:35:28 where 28 is the percentage that did not vote. On top of that, there was a significant number not even invited to vote. 16-17 year olds and expats for example. So it’s reasonable to assume that perhaps a majority of the public don’t want to Leave but, anyway, it’s at least a very large number of people.
In Parliament, they are not equipped to deliver this decision. It runs across rather than along party lines. It needs something like a government of national unity to deliver it. And we have the very opposite.
All of this was predictable. All of this was certainly on my mind when I was voting and hoping for a marginal Remain victory.
To blame Remainers or Leavers for it is disingenuous. We’re all to blame for the bickering, but the source of the current bickering is that Leavers voted to Leave.
It’s interesting, reading the responses, to imagine what the situation would’ve been had the result been 52:48 for Remain. I think I can say with some confidence that the country would not have got behind it. And with good reason.
I was hoping for an even tighter 50.1:49.9 Remain result. I expect that would have resulted in another referendum within 5 years, not the whole country getting behind the decision.
The problems we have are twofold- the public and the Parliament.
Among the public, the outcome was not 52:48 but 37:35:28 where 28 is the percentage that did not vote. On top of that, there was a significant number not even invited to vote. 16-17 year olds and expats for example. So it’s reasonable to assume that perhaps a majority of the public don’t want to Leave but, anyway, it’s at least a very large number of people.
In Parliament, they are not equipped to deliver this decision. It runs across rather than along party lines. It needs something like a government of national unity to deliver it. And we have the very opposite.
All of this was predictable. All of this was certainly on my mind when I was voting and hoping for a marginal Remain victory.
To blame Remainers or Leavers for it is disingenuous. We’re all to blame for the bickering, but the source of the current bickering is that Leavers voted to Leave.
"What, are we supposed to have abandoned what we argued for? Would Brexiters have, were the result reversed? Of course not! Why should they?"
As I said a couple of years ago, Jim, had the result gone the other way I would have been bitterly disappointed. However, I would have accepted the result and moved on. There would have been no point in continually harping on about it and I would not have expected the government to acquiesce to my point of view by (say) extracting the UK from some of the downsides of membership whilst remaining members. If Remain had prevailed we would have simply remained in the EU on the prevailing terms (Mr Cameron tried to change them and failed) and endured anything subsequently that the EU wanted to implement. That is why the question was binary. Remain meant remaining, leave meant leaving.
The difficulty with these “negotiations” is that they are centred around the UK retaining some of the advantages of EU membership whilst ditching the bits the electorate does not like. Understandably the EU is none too keen on this approach and I don’t blame them. If the result had been 52:48 to remain do you seriously believe that our future relationship with the EU would have been under such scrutiny? Do you really believe we would be negotiating r terms with the EU because nearly half voted to leave and they must be “considered”. Do you really think there would be calls for the decision to remain to be overturned or at least put in jeopardy because those discussions were faltering? Most importantly, do you think the EU would entertain us? "Of course not" is the answer to all those questions. As I said yesterday (I think) we would have been told that the question had been finally settled and that was that. In the words of Mr Juncker “On we go!”
Nobody expects Remainers to point of view any more than I would have had the result been reversed. But their argument has been lost and until we have left the EU (properly) and experienced the consequences for a number of years it should not be revisited. The whole principle of the linearity of the discussions, dictated by the EU from the outset, should have been rejected. We should have said that we are leaving on June 24th 2018 thus leaving two years to discuss what both parties wanted thereafter.
As I said a couple of years ago, Jim, had the result gone the other way I would have been bitterly disappointed. However, I would have accepted the result and moved on. There would have been no point in continually harping on about it and I would not have expected the government to acquiesce to my point of view by (say) extracting the UK from some of the downsides of membership whilst remaining members. If Remain had prevailed we would have simply remained in the EU on the prevailing terms (Mr Cameron tried to change them and failed) and endured anything subsequently that the EU wanted to implement. That is why the question was binary. Remain meant remaining, leave meant leaving.
The difficulty with these “negotiations” is that they are centred around the UK retaining some of the advantages of EU membership whilst ditching the bits the electorate does not like. Understandably the EU is none too keen on this approach and I don’t blame them. If the result had been 52:48 to remain do you seriously believe that our future relationship with the EU would have been under such scrutiny? Do you really believe we would be negotiating r terms with the EU because nearly half voted to leave and they must be “considered”. Do you really think there would be calls for the decision to remain to be overturned or at least put in jeopardy because those discussions were faltering? Most importantly, do you think the EU would entertain us? "Of course not" is the answer to all those questions. As I said yesterday (I think) we would have been told that the question had been finally settled and that was that. In the words of Mr Juncker “On we go!”
Nobody expects Remainers to point of view any more than I would have had the result been reversed. But their argument has been lost and until we have left the EU (properly) and experienced the consequences for a number of years it should not be revisited. The whole principle of the linearity of the discussions, dictated by the EU from the outset, should have been rejected. We should have said that we are leaving on June 24th 2018 thus leaving two years to discuss what both parties wanted thereafter.
"However, I would have accepted the result and moved on. There would have been no point in continually harping on about it..."
The thing is, NJ, while I believe that you would probably have done so, I don't for a second believe that Leavers in general -- particularly those in the Tory and Ukip parties -- would have done the same. Nigel Farage said as much, as well he might. The point I'm confused about is that Leavers not so much assume -- wrongly -- that this is how they would have responded, but also seem to imply that this is how they *should* have responded to a defeat.
It's a misunderstanding of democracy to rely on the loser to stop fighting their cause -- it's that same misunderstanding that prompts all of this "treason May" or "thwarting democracy" that pervades AB lately.
The thing is, NJ, while I believe that you would probably have done so, I don't for a second believe that Leavers in general -- particularly those in the Tory and Ukip parties -- would have done the same. Nigel Farage said as much, as well he might. The point I'm confused about is that Leavers not so much assume -- wrongly -- that this is how they would have responded, but also seem to imply that this is how they *should* have responded to a defeat.
It's a misunderstanding of democracy to rely on the loser to stop fighting their cause -- it's that same misunderstanding that prompts all of this "treason May" or "thwarting democracy" that pervades AB lately.
“Let me put it this way. One reason I did not vote Leave was because I thought this unholy mess would be an outcome.”
So basically, it might prove a bit tricky so we’d better not try it. You should revisit the words of President Kennedy when he announced the USA’s intention to put a man on the moon
“On top of that, there was a significant number not even invited to vote. 16-17 year olds..”
Nor were new-borns.
“…and expats for example.”
Why should they have been invited? As I recall, you had to have been absent from the country for fifteen years before losing your franchise. Somebody having been absent that long has clearly made their future elsewhere (bar returning here when they need free medical treatment not available in their host nation). Why on earth should they have a say in the future of a country where they do not live?
“In Parliament, they are not equipped to deliver this decision.”
They are, but they are trying to deliver a Brexit which aims to retain features of EU membership. That’s where the difficulties begin.
So basically, it might prove a bit tricky so we’d better not try it. You should revisit the words of President Kennedy when he announced the USA’s intention to put a man on the moon
“On top of that, there was a significant number not even invited to vote. 16-17 year olds..”
Nor were new-borns.
“…and expats for example.”
Why should they have been invited? As I recall, you had to have been absent from the country for fifteen years before losing your franchise. Somebody having been absent that long has clearly made their future elsewhere (bar returning here when they need free medical treatment not available in their host nation). Why on earth should they have a say in the future of a country where they do not live?
“In Parliament, they are not equipped to deliver this decision.”
They are, but they are trying to deliver a Brexit which aims to retain features of EU membership. That’s where the difficulties begin.
Ellipsis, //the source of the current bickering is that Leavers voted to Leave.//
No. The source of the current bickering is that Remainers are busily doing their utmost to thwart democracy. That is the bottom line.
Jim, I would have accepted a Remain result. I expected nothing else.
//It's a misunderstanding of democracy to rely on the loser to stop fighting their cause//
Remainers are not fighting their cause. They’re willfully ensuring that democracy is not served.
No. The source of the current bickering is that Remainers are busily doing their utmost to thwart democracy. That is the bottom line.
Jim, I would have accepted a Remain result. I expected nothing else.
//It's a misunderstanding of democracy to rely on the loser to stop fighting their cause//
Remainers are not fighting their cause. They’re willfully ensuring that democracy is not served.
‘they are trying to deliver a Brexit which aims to retain features of EU membership‘
It’s not going too well though is it:
https:/
It’s not going too well though is it:
https:/
"The source of the current bickering is that Remainers are busily doing their utmost to thwart democracy. That is the bottom line. "
It really, really isn't. So far the Government has lost exactly three votes on Brexit-related matters, so even supposing that Remainers voting for remain is "thwarting democracy" then they are doing a really bad job of it.
As a second point, the only reason it's this tricky at all is because Theresa May stood up last year and asked for a "strong and stable" mandate to deliver her version of Brexit. She didn't get it; the electorate said "no thanks". General Elections, not referenda, are the definition of democracy in this country.
It really, really isn't. So far the Government has lost exactly three votes on Brexit-related matters, so even supposing that Remainers voting for remain is "thwarting democracy" then they are doing a really bad job of it.
As a second point, the only reason it's this tricky at all is because Theresa May stood up last year and asked for a "strong and stable" mandate to deliver her version of Brexit. She didn't get it; the electorate said "no thanks". General Elections, not referenda, are the definition of democracy in this country.
"‘they are trying to deliver a Brexit which aims to retain features of EU membership‘
It’s not going too well though is it: "
I sincerely hope not.
"Yes, NJ, but the reason the pledge hasn’t been fulfilled is that remain MPs are still making their case ergo, the argument is not lost."
They are not making their case. The time to do that was before the referendum and certainly before they voted 5:1 to implement A50. They are simply continuing the argument that was lost in June 2016. However, we stray into semantics.
It’s not going too well though is it: "
I sincerely hope not.
"Yes, NJ, but the reason the pledge hasn’t been fulfilled is that remain MPs are still making their case ergo, the argument is not lost."
They are not making their case. The time to do that was before the referendum and certainly before they voted 5:1 to implement A50. They are simply continuing the argument that was lost in June 2016. However, we stray into semantics.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.