Quizzes & Puzzles71 mins ago
New Eu Referendum Would Break Faith With Britons, May To Warn Mps
I first thought that Mrs May was living in Cloud Cuckooo Land but now I genuinely believe she takes the electorate for complete fools. By betraying the result of the referendum in attempting to cling to the EU by the skin of her teeth if necessary, regardless of the cost to the country, she's already broken faith with Britons. Who would trust her? Lies, lies, and more lies.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. 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.
I was careful to distinguish between Brexit supporters generally and those who would prefer us to crash our without a deal. Unfortunately the words “without a deal” got omitted from the next sentence. Not all people who support Brexit want to “crash out” and not all who don’t mind us “crashing out” are an fanatical as the cheerleaders for this option , the ERG and er Sammy Wilson whose views appear to be in another stratosphere of lunacy far above even that.
These people would not stop at the cancelling of the backstop: they know they have the numbers they need to stop any sort of a deal so long as the vote remains whipped. No wonder the EU are reluctant to unpick even slightly what it’s taken months for the two sides to weave together. They know it would be futile.
That’s why her only real option as I stated above is to try and tempt some Labour MPs either to support the current option or something softer.
These people would not stop at the cancelling of the backstop: they know they have the numbers they need to stop any sort of a deal so long as the vote remains whipped. No wonder the EU are reluctant to unpick even slightly what it’s taken months for the two sides to weave together. They know it would be futile.
That’s why her only real option as I stated above is to try and tempt some Labour MPs either to support the current option or something softer.
“I was careful to distinguish between Brexit supporters generally and those who would prefer us to crash our without a deal.”
You don’t “crash” with 33 months’ notice unless you are incredibly stupid. Talk of “crashing out” when we’ve known for well over two years that we are leaving demonstrates political ineptitude of the highest order.
“That’s why her only real option as I stated above is to try and tempt some Labour MPs either to support the current option or something softer.”
Just how much softer can it get? The current proposal leaves us in the EU in all but name and the “backstop” (which is unnecessary and should never even have been discussed) will tie the UK (and especially Northern Ireland) to the EU indefinitely. It will also give them incredible leverage when a future trade deal is discussed (which is obviously why they insisted on it and why we should not even have discussed it).
You don’t “crash” with 33 months’ notice unless you are incredibly stupid. Talk of “crashing out” when we’ve known for well over two years that we are leaving demonstrates political ineptitude of the highest order.
“That’s why her only real option as I stated above is to try and tempt some Labour MPs either to support the current option or something softer.”
Just how much softer can it get? The current proposal leaves us in the EU in all but name and the “backstop” (which is unnecessary and should never even have been discussed) will tie the UK (and especially Northern Ireland) to the EU indefinitely. It will also give them incredible leverage when a future trade deal is discussed (which is obviously why they insisted on it and why we should not even have discussed it).
"Democracy" (overused word) is surely about the right of the people to have a say at important moments in their history.
The Referendum was not an important time, because:
(1) the people were not told that the government would act on the outcome (it was presented as an opinion poll)
(2) the people did not know the terms on which we would leave, if we did.
Now that we know both of those things ... there is only one betrayal of democracy ... and that is not letting the people have a say NOW at this important moment in our history.
The Referendum was not an important time, because:
(1) the people were not told that the government would act on the outcome (it was presented as an opinion poll)
(2) the people did not know the terms on which we would leave, if we did.
Now that we know both of those things ... there is only one betrayal of democracy ... and that is not letting the people have a say NOW at this important moment in our history.
Faith can be lost in degrees. Many have little faith in her leadership, but will still cling to the hope that the system is honourable enough to continue to support. A new referendum will cause massive loss of faith, for it will prove parliament and government does NOT represent the people but humours us, ignores us, and simply tells us to think again when the people decide something (as the EU does).
If only it were as simple as naomi, NJ and others pretend. Outside cloud cuckoo land workable solutions have to be found. This may not be a good solution but I just wish posters who criticise could come up with a workable answer. Can someone explain to me what deal (or 'no deal') would have been acceptable to Parliament, given that the majority of MPs prefer to Remain rather than leave?
1) The people were told that the government would act on the outcome, that's a matter of record. The thing remainers like to remind us is that legally it wasn't binding, but the promise it would be enacted overrides that.
2) People did not need to know any terms, that wasn't the question asked; any terms are besides the point, and is for politicians to negotiate. The question was, stay under EU control, or leave and regain sovereignty. And the answer was given: and the question need not be asked again simply because those who lost the vote want a second try.
2) People did not need to know any terms, that wasn't the question asked; any terms are besides the point, and is for politicians to negotiate. The question was, stay under EU control, or leave and regain sovereignty. And the answer was given: and the question need not be asked again simply because those who lost the vote want a second try.
I actually agree with OG that a second referendum would cause serious social and political problems. The first one was divisive enough (certainly it's the first time in my lifetime that I can recall a political assassination of a sitting MP). A second one will be even more so. The first also demonstrated that we just don't have the systems in place to run referenda properly as other countries do. That hasn't changed - those systems are just as absent as they were two years ago. We can't keep stretching our constitution with processes that are alien to it. That's what got us into this mess.
Plus it's all very well to insist that more referenda = more democracy, but it won't feel that way at all. It is very obvious that the second referendum campaign is intended to deliver a Remain result. The motives behind it are just as obviously short-termist as the first one. In which case at best we still have the same problem - a policy without a government attached to it, as all the major parties are pro-Brexit - or at worst we have a guarantee of more chaos and instability if the 'wrong' result comes through.
Whatever the solution to this is, it's got to come from our system of parliamentary democracy or else this crisis is just going to keep devouring and devouring everything that gets near it.
Plus it's all very well to insist that more referenda = more democracy, but it won't feel that way at all. It is very obvious that the second referendum campaign is intended to deliver a Remain result. The motives behind it are just as obviously short-termist as the first one. In which case at best we still have the same problem - a policy without a government attached to it, as all the major parties are pro-Brexit - or at worst we have a guarantee of more chaos and instability if the 'wrong' result comes through.
Whatever the solution to this is, it's got to come from our system of parliamentary democracy or else this crisis is just going to keep devouring and devouring everything that gets near it.
A poor backstop is unnecessary and to say so is clearly right. The best backstop is that the EU stop complaining and causing issues while the RoI and the UK continue to support the Good Friday agreement by keeping the border open. Maybe the RoI needs a referendum to see if their people want the EU to close their border ?
Blood pressure pills anybody
https:/
https:/
The majority of MPs may well prefer to remain, but their duty is to represent the people. Their constituents nromally, but after a country-wide referendum, their loyalty encompasses the full vote not what may have occurred in their area. If MPs allow their personal preference to be an excuse to reject all deals then they are unfit to be MPs. They need to go take a long look at themselves in the mirror and then start acting as genuine representatives. IMO that means accepting we are leaving and working out whether the EU's "deal", which ties us into the EU without any say, or 'no deal', which separates us from the EU, is nearest to "leaving", and accepting the conclusion that they reach.
-- answer removed --
“(1) the people were not told that the government would act on the outcome (it was presented as an opinion poll)”
I beg your pardon but you need to read this leaflet, jayne (which was sent to every household in the UK:
https:/
To save you the bother, on page 14 (of 16) it says this:
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
There was nothing that suggested it was an “opinion poll” and Mr Cameron (whom you may remember was the Prime Minister at the time) repeated his assurance on the telly.
“(2) the people did not know the terms on which we would leave, if we did.”
It was made quite clear (in the same leaflet and copiously in the press and on the radio and TV, what leaving would mean. It meant all the things that the government is now trying to avoid.
“The backstop is the natural consequence of both sides wanting to honour the Good Friday Agreement. People who call it "unnecessary" are therefore simply and demonstrably wrong.”
We’ve done this before, Jim and still there is no satisfactory answer forthcoming. The Good Friday Agreement is nothing to do with the EU so by “both sides” I assume you mean the UK and Ireland. Both have stated categorically that they will not implement a hard border in Ireland whatever the terms are under which the UK leaves the EU. The EU has also stated that it will not do so (though since they don’t have the authority for such action their assurance seems somewhat superfluous). So, nobody is going to impose a hard border but measures must be provided to ensure that one is not implemented. Quite how people who call it unnecessary are “therefore simply and demonstrably wrong” is hard to fathom. If anybody told me I was wrong to suggest you don’t need a solution to a problem that does not exist I’d question their logic.
I beg your pardon but you need to read this leaflet, jayne (which was sent to every household in the UK:
https:/
To save you the bother, on page 14 (of 16) it says this:
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
There was nothing that suggested it was an “opinion poll” and Mr Cameron (whom you may remember was the Prime Minister at the time) repeated his assurance on the telly.
“(2) the people did not know the terms on which we would leave, if we did.”
It was made quite clear (in the same leaflet and copiously in the press and on the radio and TV, what leaving would mean. It meant all the things that the government is now trying to avoid.
“The backstop is the natural consequence of both sides wanting to honour the Good Friday Agreement. People who call it "unnecessary" are therefore simply and demonstrably wrong.”
We’ve done this before, Jim and still there is no satisfactory answer forthcoming. The Good Friday Agreement is nothing to do with the EU so by “both sides” I assume you mean the UK and Ireland. Both have stated categorically that they will not implement a hard border in Ireland whatever the terms are under which the UK leaves the EU. The EU has also stated that it will not do so (though since they don’t have the authority for such action their assurance seems somewhat superfluous). So, nobody is going to impose a hard border but measures must be provided to ensure that one is not implemented. Quite how people who call it unnecessary are “therefore simply and demonstrably wrong” is hard to fathom. If anybody told me I was wrong to suggest you don’t need a solution to a problem that does not exist I’d question their logic.
Sadly O_G, I cannot see The SNP, Liberals and a pretty large number of Labour MPs missing the opportunity to vote against the government or any sort of 'leave' deal / no deal as their bigger aim is to overtun the government and gain more power (although whether they would want the poison chalice of delivering Brexit or otherwise is debatable).
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles111 mins ago
Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles142 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles146 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles255 mins ago
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.