Adverts21 mins ago
St Nige Ahead In The Polls.......
110 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.// If MPs are going to make promises which include asking the entire country, they should have a plan to deliver it. //
On this I absolutely agree with you -- but they didn't. The correct response shouldn't be to push ahead regardless, but to go back to the start and reconsider how to deliver the promise effectively.
Now, clearly my saying this has no force, but it is not too difficult to find Leave voters who would agree with this too. In turn, this leads to the alternative I mentioned: the mood of the people may, or may not, have changed since 2016, but there is absolutely nothing undemocratic about finding out.
On this I absolutely agree with you -- but they didn't. The correct response shouldn't be to push ahead regardless, but to go back to the start and reconsider how to deliver the promise effectively.
Now, clearly my saying this has no force, but it is not too difficult to find Leave voters who would agree with this too. In turn, this leads to the alternative I mentioned: the mood of the people may, or may not, have changed since 2016, but there is absolutely nothing undemocratic about finding out.
Jim, I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again. After the referendum you accepted the result and were resigned to the fact that Remain had lost and that meant we were leaving the EU. Then you spied the dissidents – those who had no intention of conceding defeat – and so you jumped on that bandwagon and you’ve been gathering pace on it ever since. Empty words from you, Jim – and that assessment is a kindness.
That's a total fabrication of how my position has evolved, Naomi, and I'll thank you to retract it. What happened to my views is nothing to do with "the dissidents", but rather a lot more to do with how difficult, how ruinous, and how manifestly disruptive Brexit has been. Never mind all of the technicalities that were hidden from me -- from us, even -- because Cameron lied to everyone in that *** leaflet, or because prior to 2016 I had only a very limited understanding of the UK's constitution.
You do me far too little credit. I'll accept that you can have a low opinion of me right now -- to some extent I even sympathise with you there -- but this is not about conspiracy, or dissent, or lack of integrity, or any of the other slurs you're throwing in my direction. This is about how I see it, and nothing else.
Now, enough of this. I've asked you several times before, and I will ask you once again, to remember the old adage, that if you have nothing nice to say about somebody, then say nothing.
You do me far too little credit. I'll accept that you can have a low opinion of me right now -- to some extent I even sympathise with you there -- but this is not about conspiracy, or dissent, or lack of integrity, or any of the other slurs you're throwing in my direction. This is about how I see it, and nothing else.
Now, enough of this. I've asked you several times before, and I will ask you once again, to remember the old adage, that if you have nothing nice to say about somebody, then say nothing.
Perhaps, but all the same it's been claimed several times that the contents of that leaflet justify overruling all sorts of aspects of constitutional law, so you'll forgive me for mentioning it. The broader point is that I didn't stop learning about the EU, the UK's place in it, and related matters in 2016, so why shouldn't I let that further research inform my views? Naomi is quite right to point out that instantly following the referendum I stated that, however bitter the result, I was prepared to accept it. In 2016, that was true. I think it still could be true, if a satisfactory means of exiting the EU could be found. So far as I can see, though, there are currently only two plausible ways of leaving the EU, and both of them are, in their own different ways, awful. I don't believe it is sensible to press on in either direction if they're both so bad; that leaves returning to the status quo ante referendum, which is also in its way awful -- but does, at least, give someone the option to have another, perhaps more successful, attempt in the future, assuming they can unite the country and the Commons around their vision.
// Empty words from you, Jim – and that assessment is a kindness.//
perhaps a kindness of a kind that you dont need Jim !
St Nige gives the electorate of the UK another chance to completely frack itself and they ( see above - the usual suspects ) are queueing up for it.
Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do
very pascal - someone is bound to quip: where dat from den?
perhaps a kindness of a kind that you dont need Jim !
St Nige gives the electorate of the UK another chance to completely frack itself and they ( see above - the usual suspects ) are queueing up for it.
Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do
very pascal - someone is bound to quip: where dat from den?
Three years is a long time, and as I say I've never stopped learning about politics, law, the EU, etc. There are no excuses here. If you can't see that, then that is for you to sort out, Naomi, not me. You are simply wrong about me, and if you don't want to retract it then I can only suggest you keep your opinions about me to yourself in future. You have made them clear enough already.
“….but there is at least one more alternative open, namely returning the question, or some variation of it, to the people.”
Why? All that has happened in the last 33 months is that the EU has cobbled together a form of allowing us to leave with the promise of not causing us too much trouble. The conditions attached to this are, quite predictably, completely unacceptable. The electorate was not asked if they wanted to leave provided it was not too much trouble; they were asked if they wanted to leave. They said “yes” and politicians need to deal with any trouble the EU may present. Because they have been unable to do so is no reason to keep asking the same question, or any variation of it. The notion that we cannot properly leave because it will be too troublesome is quite frankly laughable.
Why? All that has happened in the last 33 months is that the EU has cobbled together a form of allowing us to leave with the promise of not causing us too much trouble. The conditions attached to this are, quite predictably, completely unacceptable. The electorate was not asked if they wanted to leave provided it was not too much trouble; they were asked if they wanted to leave. They said “yes” and politicians need to deal with any trouble the EU may present. Because they have been unable to do so is no reason to keep asking the same question, or any variation of it. The notion that we cannot properly leave because it will be too troublesome is quite frankly laughable.
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.