News2 mins 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.
Jim, //It really, really isn't.//
Yes … it really, really is. If the result had been accepted none of this would have been happening. We’d have fulfilled our obligations and left the club.
//General Elections, not referenda, are the definition of democracy in this country.//
Nonsense. If democracy only means democracy in selected circumstances there was no point in putting the question to the country. Poor argument Jim – an extremely poor argument - but convenient for your purpose.
Yes … it really, really is. If the result had been accepted none of this would have been happening. We’d have fulfilled our obligations and left the club.
//General Elections, not referenda, are the definition of democracy in this country.//
Nonsense. If democracy only means democracy in selected circumstances there was no point in putting the question to the country. Poor argument Jim – an extremely poor argument - but convenient for your purpose.
My, these Remainers are such clever chaps. They all predicted everything that would happen. (albeit with the benefit of hindsight, I suspect)
Except, of course, the result of the referendum.
And therein lies the problem, They made such fools of themselves prior to the vote that they can't stop digging.
Except, of course, the result of the referendum.
And therein lies the problem, They made such fools of themselves prior to the vote that they can't stop digging.
It's a serious point, as a matter of fact. I am not saying that referendums are *bad* for democracy but as a matter of fact there is no mechanism for them in the way the UK's democracy works. We don't hold them except at Parliament's discretion; and then, in the examples they have been held, they were always designed to kill or bury an argument rather than to settle it.
In the meantime, however, General Elections are the primary democratic exercise in this country, and therefore their results (and the implications thereof) necessarily override any other democratic exercise. If, for example, we were to elect a pro-EU party to power in 2022, it would be by definition a rejection of the 2016 result; if and party suddenly stood on a manifesto commitment to break up the Union and won a majority, then the 2014 Scottish Independence result would be reversed; and if the Lib Dems got in and carried out their long-promised reforms to the electoral system, then you could say goodbye to FPTP regardless of what happened in 2011.
Most of these rely on the Lib Dems getting into power, which is to say that they'll never happen, but still, the point is that in theory and in practice a General Election is what decides the direction of this country, rather than a referendum. Since the 2017 GE denied May her majority and, in effect, handed a lot more control to Remain-leaning rebels and the Labour Opposition, it is no surprise that the result is a Brexit that is nowhere near what may was planning; and you can't complain about it either.
As and when referendums are established as actually democratic exercises, rather than as (a) a (failed) way to head off Ukip/Tory rebels; (b) a necessary compromise to bring a coalition; or (c) a (failed) anti-SNP gambit, *then* you can start moaning about thwarting democracy.
In the meantime, however, General Elections are the primary democratic exercise in this country, and therefore their results (and the implications thereof) necessarily override any other democratic exercise. If, for example, we were to elect a pro-EU party to power in 2022, it would be by definition a rejection of the 2016 result; if and party suddenly stood on a manifesto commitment to break up the Union and won a majority, then the 2014 Scottish Independence result would be reversed; and if the Lib Dems got in and carried out their long-promised reforms to the electoral system, then you could say goodbye to FPTP regardless of what happened in 2011.
Most of these rely on the Lib Dems getting into power, which is to say that they'll never happen, but still, the point is that in theory and in practice a General Election is what decides the direction of this country, rather than a referendum. Since the 2017 GE denied May her majority and, in effect, handed a lot more control to Remain-leaning rebels and the Labour Opposition, it is no surprise that the result is a Brexit that is nowhere near what may was planning; and you can't complain about it either.
As and when referendums are established as actually democratic exercises, rather than as (a) a (failed) way to head off Ukip/Tory rebels; (b) a necessary compromise to bring a coalition; or (c) a (failed) anti-SNP gambit, *then* you can start moaning about thwarting democracy.
“I do agree with that, but -- once again -- the result has already been implemented.”
No it hasn’t, Jim. The UK will not leave the EU for another eight months. More than that, there are still calls from some quarters for the process of leaving to be halted (because negotiating a “deal” is proving tricky) and it is arguable that many of the arrangements proposed amount to “Brino” (Brexit In Name Only). Mr Cameron's government made it quite clear that leaving the EU would mean quitting both the Customs Union and the Single Market and yet almost all the proposals put forward by Mrs May (thankfully rejected by our friends across the Channel) involve membership of one or both of those to a greater or lesser degree. Until next March (and only then if we leave properly and fully and are no longer under the influence of the EU as it seems to be suggested we must be to survive) the pledge to implement the result of the referendum has not been met.
No it hasn’t, Jim. The UK will not leave the EU for another eight months. More than that, there are still calls from some quarters for the process of leaving to be halted (because negotiating a “deal” is proving tricky) and it is arguable that many of the arrangements proposed amount to “Brino” (Brexit In Name Only). Mr Cameron's government made it quite clear that leaving the EU would mean quitting both the Customs Union and the Single Market and yet almost all the proposals put forward by Mrs May (thankfully rejected by our friends across the Channel) involve membership of one or both of those to a greater or lesser degree. Until next March (and only then if we leave properly and fully and are no longer under the influence of the EU as it seems to be suggested we must be to survive) the pledge to implement the result of the referendum has not been met.
Jno, I don’t ‘do’ a word of the month, neither do I use the word ‘disingenuous’ because people disagree with me. If I’m using that word a lot, you can bet your boots there’s a lot of disingenuousness about.
Jim, The kindest thing I can say about your post (and many from other ‘Leavers’) is that we appear to be encountering an updated version of ‘Newspeak’.
Jim, The kindest thing I can say about your post (and many from other ‘Leavers’) is that we appear to be encountering an updated version of ‘Newspeak’.
These things are in the eye of the beholder. As far as I'm concerned, I'm calling it as I see it. I will concede of course that we haven't actually left yet, but since the only question on the table was leaving the EU or remaining in it, it stands to reason that the only required action on the part of government was to trigger Article 50.
The rest *is* detail. That detail is bound to leave many people dissatisfied with the outcome, but it is clearly misleading to pretend that there was one, and only one, way of interpreting that detail to carry out the will of the referendum.
What is more, the first time anyone went to the people to offer a particular version of that detail, the people said "no thanks". The 2017 Election is clearly very significant -- even with other issues at play, it amounts to a refusal to give Theresa May, or anyone else, a mandate for their particular version of Brexit. So of *course* she's backed down from the "Harder" version that she clearly had in mind prior to the election. She had no choice. The British people gave her none.
The rest *is* detail. That detail is bound to leave many people dissatisfied with the outcome, but it is clearly misleading to pretend that there was one, and only one, way of interpreting that detail to carry out the will of the referendum.
What is more, the first time anyone went to the people to offer a particular version of that detail, the people said "no thanks". The 2017 Election is clearly very significant -- even with other issues at play, it amounts to a refusal to give Theresa May, or anyone else, a mandate for their particular version of Brexit. So of *course* she's backed down from the "Harder" version that she clearly had in mind prior to the election. She had no choice. The British people gave her none.
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.