Jobs & Education2 mins ago
5 More Years In The Eu?
I have a lot of time for Ukipper Jeff Taylor, watching him regularly, he is a lawyer himself and I find his take on the coming EU elections as a new backstop a bit worrying, what do you think?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
It probably didn't mention a 2nd referendum because they wanted to have a chance of forming a government. Pandering to those who'd vote Labour anyway gains nothing.
Citizens who chose to vote here would have known the risk, so I don't see how it can violate anyone's rights. But the law is an ars so who knows.
But one can nor deny a whole population's rights in order to protect a handful of citizens who chose to take a risk. Must be a nonsense.
Citizens who chose to vote here would have known the risk, so I don't see how it can violate anyone's rights. But the law is an ars so who knows.
But one can nor deny a whole population's rights in order to protect a handful of citizens who chose to take a risk. Must be a nonsense.
If there’s another referendum it will be to allow people the chance to vote for a Brexit Deal that Parliament has been unable to pass.
And before you moan about MPs, an interesting poll the other day shows what is hardly surprising; namely, that the country is divided on Brexit and the different flavours of it pretty much exactly along the same lines as parliament. In that respect, Parliament is exactly representative of the people as all good parliaments should be, in spite of what people like Farage would have you believe.
And before you moan about MPs, an interesting poll the other day shows what is hardly surprising; namely, that the country is divided on Brexit and the different flavours of it pretty much exactly along the same lines as parliament. In that respect, Parliament is exactly representative of the people as all good parliaments should be, in spite of what people like Farage would have you believe.
ichi;//Parliament is exactly representative of the people as all good parliaments should be//
Absolute piffle, and unfounded piffle at that;
Statistics from The Spectator, 'Barometer' 06/04/2019
How is the country split?
Votes in the referendum, Leave, 17.4 m - Remain, 16.1m
Constituency, Leave, 406 - Remain, 242
Labour constituency, Leave, 148 - Remain, 84
Conservative constituency, Leave 247 - Remain, 80
Region Leave 9 - Remain 3
Wait for it ;
MPs Leave 160 - Remain, 486
Absolute piffle, and unfounded piffle at that;
Statistics from The Spectator, 'Barometer' 06/04/2019
How is the country split?
Votes in the referendum, Leave, 17.4 m - Remain, 16.1m
Constituency, Leave, 406 - Remain, 242
Labour constituency, Leave, 148 - Remain, 84
Conservative constituency, Leave 247 - Remain, 80
Region Leave 9 - Remain 3
Wait for it ;
MPs Leave 160 - Remain, 486
I cannot find the link to the poll khandro but it is based on people's actual views, not statistics from the referendum result, which asked a simple question. That is really the nub of the issue I am afraid: falling back on the response to a simple question when life is much more complicated than that. The referendum - arguably referendums generally, perpetuate the populist myth that "the people" speak with one voice: that is the piffle.
A reminder, however in any case, that every single MP is democratically elected.
A reminder, however in any case, that every single MP is democratically elected.
ichi; You're wobbling; "People's views" are embedded in how they vote, the Spectator stats are well researched and have not subsequently been challenged.
".. that every single MP is democratically elected.//
Yes, and on their Party's manifesto, which they have eschewed in large numbers and will soon pay the price. Now that's democracy.
".. that every single MP is democratically elected.//
Yes, and on their Party's manifesto, which they have eschewed in large numbers and will soon pay the price. Now that's democracy.
There are only a few options.
a) Leave now with the only option that provides Brexit i.e. No Deal
b) Abandon the democratic referendum result and support a fudge to pretend we've left but where we're still under EU control: thus trying to fool the public
c) Abandon the democratic referendum result and stop the exit altogether; thus admitting the disdain Westminster elite has for the rest of us.
Since only one of the options fulfils the government's obligations, it's high time parliament stopped extending/delaying/thwarting and got on with the job. The people's decision was clear enough, there can be no honourable way to thwart it by discussing so called "exit" options when there is only one.
a) Leave now with the only option that provides Brexit i.e. No Deal
b) Abandon the democratic referendum result and support a fudge to pretend we've left but where we're still under EU control: thus trying to fool the public
c) Abandon the democratic referendum result and stop the exit altogether; thus admitting the disdain Westminster elite has for the rest of us.
Since only one of the options fulfils the government's obligations, it's high time parliament stopped extending/delaying/thwarting and got on with the job. The people's decision was clear enough, there can be no honourable way to thwart it by discussing so called "exit" options when there is only one.
You are actually saying parliament should do nothing then. As that is the only course of “action” that would lead to (a)
(a) is a default scenario only.
But it isn’t one that even many so-called “hard brexiters” support. There’s probably about the same amount of support for that among MPs, or for some flavour of it, as among the electorate: ie around a third.
It would of course be grossly irresponsible simply to just “leave” and that is why most sensible folk don’t support it.
Under Theresa May’s agreement we DO leave after the transition period, but the big Achilles Heel which no one seriously previously considered is the Irish border. Oh no here we go again” I hear us all cry :-)
Sorry !
Round in round in circles we go.
(a) is a default scenario only.
But it isn’t one that even many so-called “hard brexiters” support. There’s probably about the same amount of support for that among MPs, or for some flavour of it, as among the electorate: ie around a third.
It would of course be grossly irresponsible simply to just “leave” and that is why most sensible folk don’t support it.
Under Theresa May’s agreement we DO leave after the transition period, but the big Achilles Heel which no one seriously previously considered is the Irish border. Oh no here we go again” I hear us all cry :-)
Sorry !
Round in round in circles we go.
There is a strong case that we have already left; https:/
Article concludes;
"13. The only power that the Prime Minister had, as regards Article 50, was the service of the Notice withdrawing the United Kingdom from the EU and giving two years notice. That power was completed on 29 March 2017. Accordingly, her purported request for an extension of the date of departure and the Government’s purported agreement to such an extension is and was ultra vires, unlawful and consequently is and was null and void.
14. As a result of the matters set out above the Applicant is entitled to and seeks, a Declaration from this Honourable Court that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland left the European Union upon the expiry of the Article 50 Notice on the 29 March 2019.
As Lord Justice Sir Richard Aikens has said in the Daily Mail this is clearly an arguable case and so I am expecting this to come before the High Court for a Declaration to be made that we are Out and all the plotting and chaos in Parliament is ‘cut short’ at a stroke!
Article concludes;
"13. The only power that the Prime Minister had, as regards Article 50, was the service of the Notice withdrawing the United Kingdom from the EU and giving two years notice. That power was completed on 29 March 2017. Accordingly, her purported request for an extension of the date of departure and the Government’s purported agreement to such an extension is and was ultra vires, unlawful and consequently is and was null and void.
14. As a result of the matters set out above the Applicant is entitled to and seeks, a Declaration from this Honourable Court that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland left the European Union upon the expiry of the Article 50 Notice on the 29 March 2019.
As Lord Justice Sir Richard Aikens has said in the Daily Mail this is clearly an arguable case and so I am expecting this to come before the High Court for a Declaration to be made that we are Out and all the plotting and chaos in Parliament is ‘cut short’ at a stroke!
IMO it is grossly irresponsible not to simply just “leave” since we've exhausted all possibility of the EU agreeing an acceptable deal. It's an affront to the population that we are (probably) still in. We reached the agreed date, an inability to progress with the EU is no excuse to extend membership forevermore. As for May's nonsense "deal", if any transition period ends (and there's no need for such a delay anyway) the idea that we remain in until the EU decides we can go, is unacceptable. That's before we even consider the difficulty of making our own trade deals in the meantime. It's a total non-starter.
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Spec 2682 Last Light Help Please
Crosswords5 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
