Why Do They Keep Saying "no Deal Legislation"?

[ToraToraTora]

It's a bill to compell the government to ask for an extension. No deal is not even mentioned in it.

[jim360]

Also, when you say this:

// Your confession that given the opportunity you would support multiple ballots until one returned the desired result...//

I don't know how many times I can say this before you actually read it, but "until one returned the desired result", and in particular the "until", as if once I'd won that would be it. It's completely untrue. If we held a second referendum tomorrow, and my side won, then you would be perfectly at liberty to demand a third referendum the day after that.* And so on. As long as you had the country behind you, then why not?

Don't take "days" here too literally, of course. But it all follows from the principle that no Parliament in the UK, and no electorate in the UK, can ever stop its successors from making a decision if they want to.

[Peter Pedant]

i Jim I admire your persistence in the face of an onslaught by the usual suspects

nd no electorate in the UK, can ever stop its successors from making a decision if they want to.

incredibly this was discused by Ld Denning on the entry to the Common Market in 1973
he also covered the unthinkable - making heavy weather of the journey from the commons to the palace for the Royal Assent

and that was - - sertain actions were like arrows
and one such MAY be act of parliament

specifcally if the Independence of India Act were repealed - would the subcontinent return to being the Indian Empire ?
His Lordship thought not

but anyway by and large, the level of discussion on Brexit has hardly been inspiring innit

why dey call it no deal den?
Jesus there are some heart sink threads on AB
but didnt scarlett (*) say - tomorrow is another day - I will think about it then ....

(*) who she den?

[Spicerack]

//But it all follows from the principle that no Parliament in the UK, and no electorate in the UK, can ever stop its successors from making a decision if they want to.//

Of course they can't, that's the EU's job.

(Just wait till the Lisbon Treaty 'amendments' start kicking in next year, jim. We'll have you in that oversized uniform on the Russian Front yet)

[Spicerack]

Peter, Peter, Peter, the pickled onion eater.
You need to dial back on the smugness a bit.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that you are a member of some intellectual elite.
You have nothing to be supercilious about. Let's face it, you can barely string a cogent sentence together.

[jim360]

What Lisbon Treaty Amendments?

[Spicerack]

The amendments to our relationship with the EU.
You'll, no doubt, be surprised to learn they're designed to integrate us further into the EU.

[jim360]

Could you be more specific?

The reason I ask is because there's a famous "list" of things that come into force under the Lisbon Treaty next year, and it is all entirely bogus. So I was wondering if you were referring to that or to something that was actually factual.

[Spicerack]

You need to keep off the Full 'Fact', jim,

[jim360]

So what are these reforms? Examples, please.

[Spicerack]

Anyway, I'm coming around to your way of thinking, jim.
If we Brexit, every problem, including the weather, will be laid at my door by you until I peg out.
If we remain, the boot will be on the other foot. I'll even send (sarcastic) postcards to you at the Front.
night night.

[jim360]

That wasn't my line of thinking, and I'm still wondering what you are talking about. Instead of dancing around the issue, why not be specific?

[Spicerack]

Google, jim, google.

[jim360]

Of course, you can't be specific, because the Lisbon Treaty is already in force and there are no "amendments" that will enter into force in 2020.

[jim360]

And here's the thing: you don't even need that list of utter tripe to justify wanting to leave the EU. If you were ideologically opposed to anyone other than a nation state having influence in their own law, then the EU was already something you'd object to without needing to invent some ludicrous conspiracy about how we'll be forced to adopt the Euro by 2022 and forced into Schengen and lose our veto and whatever other falsehoods you were referring to.

Feel free to correct my representation above, but it's not up to me to provide *your* sources for *your* claims.

[naomi24]

//If we held a second referendum tomorrow, and my side won, then you would be perfectly at liberty to demand a third referendum the day after that.*//

And all that toing, froing and continuing uncertainly a direct result of overriding democracy and ignoring the outcome of the first. Despotic politics. Be careful what you wish for, Jim. Next time you could be on the winning side – and under your terms that could well make you a loser.

[jim360]

I don't believe that there's such a thing as a winning side over Brexit any more, although I appreciate the warning. But it's not despotic politics. It *does*, I'll admit, rely on a great deal of good faith and trust between opponents, and there is a lack of that right now. But if one side is calling the other little-England racists, and in return you get the whole VBQ/traitor/collaborator thing -- a war mentality, in other words -- then what else do we expect?

A good first step would be for Brexiters to try and accept that it's possible to want to Remain in the EU and want what's best for Britain at the same time, rather than to constantly question and attack the motives of Remain supporters. A few cynics aside, that is more or less universally the truth for all of us, is it not?

[naomi24]

Jim, what you ‘want’ should be irrelevant to the result. I don’t ‘want’ a Labour government but if one is elected I’ll have to accept it because that's how democracy works. You lost. Accept it.

[dannyk13]

I doubt that Boris (or anyone else) can get an extension:-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7433687/Europe-REJECT-Brexit-extension-despite-efforts-Remainers.html

[jim360]

I did accept it. I *do* accept it. But democracy didn't "stop" with the result in 2016. A further vote, if the electorate is content with that, would be equally democratic.

Shutting down the debate and arguing that any given vote ends the matter for ever is not a part of how democracies function. It never has been, and it never will be.

[jim360]

Indeed, danny. Although it does irritate me how the Daily Mail's headline includes "may still Reject", but the URL appears to say that they have already rejected it. What's with that?