Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News1 min ago
Vote On 2Nd Refrendum
40 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by spathiphyllum. 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.
that's all very well, but what deal will the electorate be asked to give their consent for? doesn't the wording of the amendment imply the details of any deal need to be set out before the vote? or is the object of this to bypass parliament and attempt to get the public to foist the PM's deal on us?
-- answer removed --
Bring it on, I say. Then the result of that can be simply ignored because our representatives could not run a whelk stall.
"The EU would have to agree to us staying and they would only do that by removing our rebate and making us adopt the Euro. Amongst other things"
There must be at least 16m (plus those who couldn't be bothered to get out of bed because, we are told, they were happy with the "status quo") who would be more than pleased to see more of their hard-earned shovelled over to Brussels/Strasbourg for distribution among the needy. They would also presumably be glad to see the back of Sterling and see the UK adopt a currency that has consigned millions of people across the continent to poverty.
"The EU would have to agree to us staying and they would only do that by removing our rebate and making us adopt the Euro. Amongst other things"
There must be at least 16m (plus those who couldn't be bothered to get out of bed because, we are told, they were happy with the "status quo") who would be more than pleased to see more of their hard-earned shovelled over to Brussels/Strasbourg for distribution among the needy. They would also presumably be glad to see the back of Sterling and see the UK adopt a currency that has consigned millions of people across the continent to poverty.
I just heard on the radio that Mrs May will next week, for a third time, present her deal to Parliament. Since the EU has said there is no further room for negotiation, and No Deal has been taken off the table, the only reason an extension will be sought is for Mrs May to present her bill again and again until it's either accepted or everyone has completely abandoned the will to live and Brexit is ditched altogether. A second referendum won't solve it.
That's some imagination !
Meanwhile, back in reality... "a longer extension to allow time for another plan to be brought forward". What possible plan ? The EU has already made clear it's not shifting. If they ain't been reasonable so far in 2 years it ain't going to happen in a prolonged period of uncertainty. It can only be to try to get the UK to vote again and come up with the approved result. Like the EU always tries.
Meanwhile, back in reality... "a longer extension to allow time for another plan to be brought forward". What possible plan ? The EU has already made clear it's not shifting. If they ain't been reasonable so far in 2 years it ain't going to happen in a prolonged period of uncertainty. It can only be to try to get the UK to vote again and come up with the approved result. Like the EU always tries.
"...Juncker has stated that the EU will be open to an extension to find a solution to this debacle."
The only solution to this debacle (leaving with no deal) was effectively ruled out yesterday. Let's recap:
- There is only one "deal" on offer.
- Parliament has ruled that out on two occasions by massive majorities.
- Leaving with "No Deal" is not acceptable.
MPs have brought this situation on by refusing to sanction "No Deal". They cannot say they had no inkling a satisfactory deal would not be concluded. Anyone with half a brain should have realised it and in any case there were dire warnings before the referendum that (a) a satisfactory deal (i.e. one which achieved the stated aims of removing us from the Customs union, the Single Market and the ECJ) was unlikely and (b) "No Deal" would (allegedly) see the country go to Hell in a handcart.
Mr Cameron made no plans for a "Leave" vote and his successor made no significant plans from the outset for No Deal. Everybody had their heads in the sand. They've now looked up and don't like the look of what they have been missing.
The only solution to this debacle (leaving with no deal) was effectively ruled out yesterday. Let's recap:
- There is only one "deal" on offer.
- Parliament has ruled that out on two occasions by massive majorities.
- Leaving with "No Deal" is not acceptable.
MPs have brought this situation on by refusing to sanction "No Deal". They cannot say they had no inkling a satisfactory deal would not be concluded. Anyone with half a brain should have realised it and in any case there were dire warnings before the referendum that (a) a satisfactory deal (i.e. one which achieved the stated aims of removing us from the Customs union, the Single Market and the ECJ) was unlikely and (b) "No Deal" would (allegedly) see the country go to Hell in a handcart.
Mr Cameron made no plans for a "Leave" vote and his successor made no significant plans from the outset for No Deal. Everybody had their heads in the sand. They've now looked up and don't like the look of what they have been missing.
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.