Science0 min ago
Why Do They Keep Saying "no Deal Legislation"?
146 Answers
It's a bill to compell the government to ask for an extension. No deal is not even mentioned in it.
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.
Jim, the only reason that you - or anyone else wants a second referendum is because you don't like the result of the first. Come a second and you don't like the result of that, what then? A third?
The so called 'People's Vote' is a nonsense. The people have been asked and they have spoken. They voted to Leave - with, as promised, no ifs and buts.
The so called 'People's Vote' is a nonsense. The people have been asked and they have spoken. They voted to Leave - with, as promised, no ifs and buts.
Supposing for the sake of argument that I am struggling, NJ, what would *you* count as "soft Remain"?
The reason I am counting all of that as soft remain is because I don't agree that the margin wouldn't have mattered. Part of the reason we haven't embraced the EU project before is because there's always been a significant Eurosceptic streak to British politics, and in turn that relies on popular support. Particularly during and after Maastricht that began to increase. I don't see how anyone can plausibly argue that, should the UK have voted to Remain in the EU with a resounding margin, that would have given no mandate to at least test the water with policies that increased integration.
I can see where you are coming from, but I can't see how stepping even further out to reflect the 52/48 vote would be possible. And, finally, I take issue with the idea that "[Leavers] would simply have been told 'That's it, Let's move on', and that's how it should have been". Aside from anything else, it would be monumentally hypocritical of me to argue that the 2016 referendum should have marked the end of it hard it gone "my way" -- but more to the point, in such a tight margin, that would represent c. 16 million people voting Leave and losing, and at the very least political parties would continue to try and find ways to appeal to them, rather than dismiss entirely. Perhaps there would have been some succour on tighter immigration controls -- which, not incidentally, would still have been possible even in the EU.
The reason I am counting all of that as soft remain is because I don't agree that the margin wouldn't have mattered. Part of the reason we haven't embraced the EU project before is because there's always been a significant Eurosceptic streak to British politics, and in turn that relies on popular support. Particularly during and after Maastricht that began to increase. I don't see how anyone can plausibly argue that, should the UK have voted to Remain in the EU with a resounding margin, that would have given no mandate to at least test the water with policies that increased integration.
I can see where you are coming from, but I can't see how stepping even further out to reflect the 52/48 vote would be possible. And, finally, I take issue with the idea that "[Leavers] would simply have been told 'That's it, Let's move on', and that's how it should have been". Aside from anything else, it would be monumentally hypocritical of me to argue that the 2016 referendum should have marked the end of it hard it gone "my way" -- but more to the point, in such a tight margin, that would represent c. 16 million people voting Leave and losing, and at the very least political parties would continue to try and find ways to appeal to them, rather than dismiss entirely. Perhaps there would have been some succour on tighter immigration controls -- which, not incidentally, would still have been possible even in the EU.
// Jim, the only reason that you - or anyone else wants a second referendum is because you don't like the result of the first. //
I mean, obviously that's a major motivation. But my entire argument is based on two points: firstly, even Leave campaigners were open to and supportive of the idea of two referendums, one on the principle and one on the terms. And secondly, it is simply not true to suggest that a future referendum -- I don't use the term "People's Vote", and never will -- is undemocratic, for all the reasons I have outlined. "The people have been asked and they have spoken", as you say, but the crucial problem with that is that the people who were asked are the people as they existed in 2016, and not the people as they are today. What do we think *now*? As I said, I don't know, but democracy cannot be threatened by finding out. We always have a right to reverse decisions in the past, if that is what we want to do, but there is no right to force the hand of the future.
What are your reasons for opposing a referendum? It's not difficult to see that it's at least in part because you've already got the result you want. Sure, it also will be because you have a different understanding of whether or not it would be even democratic to ask, but, let's face it, it must be a lot easier to make that argument when the effect of that is in your favour. It's tiresome to have to keep combating the pretence that the cynicism here can flow only in one direction.
And, besides, as I said earlier: a second referendum, if it went in favour of Remaining, would have no power to stop the UK in its future from changing its mind yet again, if it so wished.
I mean, obviously that's a major motivation. But my entire argument is based on two points: firstly, even Leave campaigners were open to and supportive of the idea of two referendums, one on the principle and one on the terms. And secondly, it is simply not true to suggest that a future referendum -- I don't use the term "People's Vote", and never will -- is undemocratic, for all the reasons I have outlined. "The people have been asked and they have spoken", as you say, but the crucial problem with that is that the people who were asked are the people as they existed in 2016, and not the people as they are today. What do we think *now*? As I said, I don't know, but democracy cannot be threatened by finding out. We always have a right to reverse decisions in the past, if that is what we want to do, but there is no right to force the hand of the future.
What are your reasons for opposing a referendum? It's not difficult to see that it's at least in part because you've already got the result you want. Sure, it also will be because you have a different understanding of whether or not it would be even democratic to ask, but, let's face it, it must be a lot easier to make that argument when the effect of that is in your favour. It's tiresome to have to keep combating the pretence that the cynicism here can flow only in one direction.
And, besides, as I said earlier: a second referendum, if it went in favour of Remaining, would have no power to stop the UK in its future from changing its mind yet again, if it so wished.
Oh, and when you say:
// Come a second and you don't like the result of that, what then? A third? //
Well, yes -- but only if the public, or if the politicians, were to support that. And so on. There would have to be consent. I could hardly force repeated referendums until I got the answer I wanted unless I had enough people who supported me on that -- and, I would assume, in the situation you are envisaging, where I'd be on the losing side (again), there would be no such will.
And it's missing a further point: in practice, there will be no second referendum if Boris Johnson -- or Nigel Farage, if the Brexit Party breaks through into Parliament in the coming election -- has any say about it. The only way such a referendum can even be called is if there's support for it in Parliament, which currently there is not. So, even to get to the situation of a second referendum in the first place you need to politicians there who can introduce and pass that policy. And, in turn, they are only there if the people have voted for it in the coming General Election.
So for a second referendum to occur, in practice, the people will need to have voted for it to even be held. And, if the people have reached that decision, how can it be held undemocratic?
// Come a second and you don't like the result of that, what then? A third? //
Well, yes -- but only if the public, or if the politicians, were to support that. And so on. There would have to be consent. I could hardly force repeated referendums until I got the answer I wanted unless I had enough people who supported me on that -- and, I would assume, in the situation you are envisaging, where I'd be on the losing side (again), there would be no such will.
And it's missing a further point: in practice, there will be no second referendum if Boris Johnson -- or Nigel Farage, if the Brexit Party breaks through into Parliament in the coming election -- has any say about it. The only way such a referendum can even be called is if there's support for it in Parliament, which currently there is not. So, even to get to the situation of a second referendum in the first place you need to politicians there who can introduce and pass that policy. And, in turn, they are only there if the people have voted for it in the coming General Election.
So for a second referendum to occur, in practice, the people will need to have voted for it to even be held. And, if the people have reached that decision, how can it be held undemocratic?
//what would *you* count as "soft Remain"?//
Nothing. There is no such thing (in the same way as there is no such thing as a “soft” Brexit). You’re either in or you’re out.
//Aside from anything else, it would be monumentally hypocritical of me to argue that the 2016 referendum should have marked the end of it hard it gone "my way"//
Believe me, Jim, that would have been the end of the matter. Mr Farage and some of his mates might have made a few noises for a few months but they would quickly have been dismissed. The Brexit party would probably not have been formed and even if it had it would have made no substantial inroads in the recent EU elections and no GE is due until 2022. I think most Leavers would be like me – I would have been bitterly disappointed but I would not have immediately began to plot ways of overturning the result or having a re-run. I would have accepted that the majority of those who voted did not share my view and that majority should prevail. I would not have expected any consideration for my losing views to be made. I would not have expected any degree of remaining; we simply remain.
Your idea of a second referendum being held on the basis that the electorate is not the same as in 2016 might be sound except that if one were held, say, in 2020 and the vote was again to leave, presumably we would embark on another 4 years of prevarication and delay arguing over what form it might take. Then in 2024 when the same impasse has been encountered we should ask the electorate again (because, of course, they will not be the same electorate aas voted in 2020).
Nothing. There is no such thing (in the same way as there is no such thing as a “soft” Brexit). You’re either in or you’re out.
//Aside from anything else, it would be monumentally hypocritical of me to argue that the 2016 referendum should have marked the end of it hard it gone "my way"//
Believe me, Jim, that would have been the end of the matter. Mr Farage and some of his mates might have made a few noises for a few months but they would quickly have been dismissed. The Brexit party would probably not have been formed and even if it had it would have made no substantial inroads in the recent EU elections and no GE is due until 2022. I think most Leavers would be like me – I would have been bitterly disappointed but I would not have immediately began to plot ways of overturning the result or having a re-run. I would have accepted that the majority of those who voted did not share my view and that majority should prevail. I would not have expected any consideration for my losing views to be made. I would not have expected any degree of remaining; we simply remain.
Your idea of a second referendum being held on the basis that the electorate is not the same as in 2016 might be sound except that if one were held, say, in 2020 and the vote was again to leave, presumably we would embark on another 4 years of prevarication and delay arguing over what form it might take. Then in 2024 when the same impasse has been encountered we should ask the electorate again (because, of course, they will not be the same electorate aas voted in 2020).
// Why Do They Keep Saying "no Deal Legislation"?//
yeah foo n 1939 we had da Defence of the Realm Act 1939 an dat was just about giving huns hell
yeah n The official secrets act -
well if the secret is in the papers, den it isnt a secret any more is it?
it should "unofficial giving away of govt stuff - bad - very bad act"
That's much clearer
yeah an George Orwell ( why he Geo Orwell his real name was Tony Blair or sumfing) in 1984 (*) called the war office minipax - pax is Latin for 'Peace'
an the Home Office - was minitruth
full of liars dey were
a bit like today....
yeah why all that then?
(*) when dat den?
and that is TTT for today
yeah foo n 1939 we had da Defence of the Realm Act 1939 an dat was just about giving huns hell
yeah n The official secrets act -
well if the secret is in the papers, den it isnt a secret any more is it?
it should "unofficial giving away of govt stuff - bad - very bad act"
That's much clearer
yeah an George Orwell ( why he Geo Orwell his real name was Tony Blair or sumfing) in 1984 (*) called the war office minipax - pax is Latin for 'Peace'
an the Home Office - was minitruth
full of liars dey were
a bit like today....
yeah why all that then?
(*) when dat den?
and that is TTT for today
I don't believe that it would have been the end of the matter. Take the referendum on Scottish Independence, for example. If anything, the support for it has grown since the 2014 referendum -- and, of course, the SNP nearly swept the board on Westminster seats in the subsequent 2015 election, partly on the back of that energy. Farage and UKIP would have been starting from further back, it is true, but I can't take seriously the claim that they would have faded quietly into the night. We will never know, of course, but whatever I think of Farage I don't think he's a quitter and I don't think he would miss the chance of trying to appeal to the c. 16 million Leave voters: "We may be staying in the EU, but only Nigel will ensure we change it". Something a little snappier might be needed, of course,* but I don't believe for a second that he wouldn't have at least tried to tap into that energy.
Nor do I entirely believe your claims to taking the moral high ground of accepting the result. I've spent three years now listening to people on this site and elsewhere talk about finally regaining our freedom; the EU are our masters, we are but slaves; "June 23rd will be our Independence Day!"; throw off the shackles, etc.. If you truly believed in that cause, no vote would have shaken that belief. And the moral high ground is anyway bogus. It's possible to accept a democratic result and still argue against it. Democracy is a process: it is wrong to suggest that it should ever stop, on any issue. No, on this I don't believe you, but I can't stress enough that that's not meant as a slight.
As regards the prospect of future referendums, it depends on the terms. There will, for example, be less of a need to have the same prevarication if the next referendum is on the terms of a withdrawal agreement that Parliament can now accept. Likewise, if the wording of the referendum includes "leave on [date]". That's not to say that the issue couldn't be revisited again in 2024 -- and, of course, my entire argument includes the premise that it *could* be -- but *only* if there were the widespread political will amongst MPs and voters for it. If there is, then it would be, and if there is not, then it wouldn't.
*I actually tried about five different versions of this slogan. Still not happy with it.
Nor do I entirely believe your claims to taking the moral high ground of accepting the result. I've spent three years now listening to people on this site and elsewhere talk about finally regaining our freedom; the EU are our masters, we are but slaves; "June 23rd will be our Independence Day!"; throw off the shackles, etc.. If you truly believed in that cause, no vote would have shaken that belief. And the moral high ground is anyway bogus. It's possible to accept a democratic result and still argue against it. Democracy is a process: it is wrong to suggest that it should ever stop, on any issue. No, on this I don't believe you, but I can't stress enough that that's not meant as a slight.
As regards the prospect of future referendums, it depends on the terms. There will, for example, be less of a need to have the same prevarication if the next referendum is on the terms of a withdrawal agreement that Parliament can now accept. Likewise, if the wording of the referendum includes "leave on [date]". That's not to say that the issue couldn't be revisited again in 2024 -- and, of course, my entire argument includes the premise that it *could* be -- but *only* if there were the widespread political will amongst MPs and voters for it. If there is, then it would be, and if there is not, then it wouldn't.
*I actually tried about five different versions of this slogan. Still not happy with it.
When we were confronted with the ballot paper it was ---Leave or Remain. Nothing was said about having to have a deal. I ,like thousands of other voters ticked -leave and thought that was it. Now three years down the line we are in a mess and kow-towing to the EU, almost begging to be allowed to leave. The EU are being dogmatic and in my opinion are doing their utmost to keep us captive. No-one seems to know what to do and time is slipping by. If a deal is so important why isn't Boris out there now and putting something forward in order to break the deadlock. Why are the remainers so frightened at the thoughts of a No-deal exit? No one knows how things will pan out afterwards should we leave without a deal. There have been years of austerity, homeless people ,social care cuts, food banks etc.,etc. whilst we have been in the EU surely things can't be much worse?But please ,no more extensions let's just go .
-- answer removed --
Are you having a laugh Boris ?, You said ! .If there is an extension to Runways at Heathrow , you would lay down in front of the Bulldozer, now you are saying that you would sooner be found dead in a ditch, than ask the E/U for an extension.I Would like you to carry out one of those promises .Please Mr Johnson . Even your own Brother does not trust you. You are a Born Liar Boris.
Jim, //I don't believe that it would have been the end of the matter. Take the referendum on Scottish Independence, for example. If anything, the support for it has grown since the 2014 referendum//
But the result of that wasn’t trashed and ridden rough-shod over as this has been. It was honoured, and the Scottish campaign now continues, which is fair enough.
// c. 16 million people voting Leave and losing, and at the very least political parties would continue to try and find ways to appeal to them, rather than dismiss entirely. Perhaps there would have been some succour on tighter immigration controls -- which, not incidentally, would still have been possible even in the EU. //
‘Succour’? What on earth …..? I can only shake my head in disbelief at that. You may as well have said ‘Pat the ignorant plebs on the head and give them a biscuit. That’ll keep them happy’.
(Incidentally, lest anyone gain the wrong impression, uncontrolled immigration is just one area that concerns Leavers).
Your confession that given the opportunity you would support multiple ballots until one returned the desired result, doesn’t surprise me in the least. That of course would mean that any failing to meet with your approval would, like the one in question, be ignored. Funny kind of democracy you favour, Jim.
But the result of that wasn’t trashed and ridden rough-shod over as this has been. It was honoured, and the Scottish campaign now continues, which is fair enough.
// c. 16 million people voting Leave and losing, and at the very least political parties would continue to try and find ways to appeal to them, rather than dismiss entirely. Perhaps there would have been some succour on tighter immigration controls -- which, not incidentally, would still have been possible even in the EU. //
‘Succour’? What on earth …..? I can only shake my head in disbelief at that. You may as well have said ‘Pat the ignorant plebs on the head and give them a biscuit. That’ll keep them happy’.
(Incidentally, lest anyone gain the wrong impression, uncontrolled immigration is just one area that concerns Leavers).
Your confession that given the opportunity you would support multiple ballots until one returned the desired result, doesn’t surprise me in the least. That of course would mean that any failing to meet with your approval would, like the one in question, be ignored. Funny kind of democracy you favour, Jim.
I think "succour" was a typo, as I can't make head or tail of it either. "success" I meant, most likely.
To the last point: you can only call for repeated referendums *and* implement them if you carry the country with you in that call. If you can achieve that, it's democratic. If you can't, then I certainly agree that you should present repeated referendums as some kind of fait accompli. You'd need a mandate for it. But once you have said mandate, then, by definition, it would be democratic. It's not about ignoring the last one (or two, or three, etc).
To take the extreme case, if 99.9% of the country were against a future referendum (on *any* issue, not just this one), then the 0.1% who are have no mandate to force one. If it's rather closer, and if the people calling for it win an election, or if it at any rate commands a majority support in Parliament, then there *is* a mandate.
Why you keep missing that point, that you can't keep holding referendums without the popular and political support for doing so, is anybody's guess.
To the last point: you can only call for repeated referendums *and* implement them if you carry the country with you in that call. If you can achieve that, it's democratic. If you can't, then I certainly agree that you should present repeated referendums as some kind of fait accompli. You'd need a mandate for it. But once you have said mandate, then, by definition, it would be democratic. It's not about ignoring the last one (or two, or three, etc).
To take the extreme case, if 99.9% of the country were against a future referendum (on *any* issue, not just this one), then the 0.1% who are have no mandate to force one. If it's rather closer, and if the people calling for it win an election, or if it at any rate commands a majority support in Parliament, then there *is* a mandate.
Why you keep missing that point, that you can't keep holding referendums without the popular and political support for doing so, is anybody's guess.
Latest Posts
Scientific Properties Of The...
Science2 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Are Any Ab Tory True Blues Worried .
News13 mins ago
On This Day 80 Years Ago.......
History15 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.