Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Revoke Article 50 Petition
I trust that most here are aware of the petition. A chance for remainers to show that there is a lot of support for their position. Have you voted yet?
Answers
I think I will take up a new hobby - watch the numbers on the electric meter change ;-)
08:44 Mon 25th Mar 2019
// What I can't understand is the sheer arrogance of those wanting to stop a public decision because their views are so much more important than other people's. //
I don't think this is fair at all. Most notably, rescinding Article 50 doesn't of itself mean that we never leave the EU. It just means that we don't leave *now*, and arguably get a second chance to leave properly, if that is the future wish of the nation. The current mess is in part down to deciding to leave before we had worked out how and why, Theresa May in particular, and Parliament with her, deciding that they had no other choice but to start the process as soon as possible, even before it was properly planned and agreed what our route out was going to be. Now, granted, this is surely not the intention of most Remain supporters, who would want us to stay in the EU indefinitely. But it's a point worth making. There is nothing to stop, say, Nigel Farage and his new Brexit Party from winning a general election, and of course they would then have a mandate to restart the whole thing (and, for that matter, a Parliament in relative agreement on how to go about it and why).
Even setting that aside, it is a nonsense to argue that this is about arrogance. Leave voters do not have a monopoly on patriotism. Remain voters care about the UK and want to see the best future for it, just as much as Leave voters claim to. If they feel that the UK's future is not served by this policy, and even is seriously harmed by it, what else do you expect them to do? Why this insistence that they must lie down and allow it to happen? It could be argued that they've already made that mistake once, some not quite taking the referendum in 2016 as seriously as they should have.
So, no. It is not arrogance. Nor is it dismissive of the views of Brexit supporters. It's bizarre to call it immoral, or anti-democratic, to stand up and fight for your future as best you see it.
And, in the end, it's "only" a petition and a protest march. They didn't do anything stupid like deliberately stopping traffic, sending death threats to opponents, or the like.
I don't think this is fair at all. Most notably, rescinding Article 50 doesn't of itself mean that we never leave the EU. It just means that we don't leave *now*, and arguably get a second chance to leave properly, if that is the future wish of the nation. The current mess is in part down to deciding to leave before we had worked out how and why, Theresa May in particular, and Parliament with her, deciding that they had no other choice but to start the process as soon as possible, even before it was properly planned and agreed what our route out was going to be. Now, granted, this is surely not the intention of most Remain supporters, who would want us to stay in the EU indefinitely. But it's a point worth making. There is nothing to stop, say, Nigel Farage and his new Brexit Party from winning a general election, and of course they would then have a mandate to restart the whole thing (and, for that matter, a Parliament in relative agreement on how to go about it and why).
Even setting that aside, it is a nonsense to argue that this is about arrogance. Leave voters do not have a monopoly on patriotism. Remain voters care about the UK and want to see the best future for it, just as much as Leave voters claim to. If they feel that the UK's future is not served by this policy, and even is seriously harmed by it, what else do you expect them to do? Why this insistence that they must lie down and allow it to happen? It could be argued that they've already made that mistake once, some not quite taking the referendum in 2016 as seriously as they should have.
So, no. It is not arrogance. Nor is it dismissive of the views of Brexit supporters. It's bizarre to call it immoral, or anti-democratic, to stand up and fight for your future as best you see it.
And, in the end, it's "only" a petition and a protest march. They didn't do anything stupid like deliberately stopping traffic, sending death threats to opponents, or the like.
I haven't ever suggested remainers are unpatriotic, traitors or anything similar. Everyone who voted for what they genuinely believed was best for the country, either way, couldn't be described that way. But now, everyone has had a say who wanted one and trying to overrule others is just arrogant. There isn't really a better word for it.
We are not prepared to leave, it's not in the interests of the country to crash out without a plan, all major economists agree it will be hugely damaging, we cannot withstand that without a huge amount of suffering taking place, so yes rescind it. It doesn't mean as Jim says that we will never necessarily leave, but it would mean that the whole situation is looked at again and a proper plan can be made if people still decide we ought to quit, rather than the tepid shambolic nonsense this government turned up with.
I personally think after this catastrophe a vote ought to be taken on any deal any future government comes up with, it's not arrogant it's just common sense. This should never have been taken to a referendum, the subject was too complex for any of us.
I personally think after this catastrophe a vote ought to be taken on any deal any future government comes up with, it's not arrogant it's just common sense. This should never have been taken to a referendum, the subject was too complex for any of us.
If some can't (or won't) prepare in the past two years they'll ensure that they "can't" after any period. There's no incentive to do so if you allow their inaction to stymie you and you put everything off.
The subject was dead simple. Do we want to get out. Nothing complex at all.
One cannot let people who are determined not to do anything, stop progress. Besides the claims of doom are unjustified and merely repeated by those wanting to convince others in order to get their own way by any means and stop Brexit; even if it is by continual delaying/postponing in order to "get ready". No one is foolish enough to swallow that one.
The subject was dead simple. Do we want to get out. Nothing complex at all.
One cannot let people who are determined not to do anything, stop progress. Besides the claims of doom are unjustified and merely repeated by those wanting to convince others in order to get their own way by any means and stop Brexit; even if it is by continual delaying/postponing in order to "get ready". No one is foolish enough to swallow that one.
Oh, of course it was complex. One cannot simply leave an organisation like the EU, of which we have been part, in one form or another, for other 40 years, without a great deal of complexity. I get bored of having to refute the total lack of substance or understanding of any of the issues in your post. As far as I can see the only meaningful evidence you have that the potential damage of No Deal has been overblown is the last time you said so. One can't deny research and study, from multiple, independent groups using different models and assumptions, by simply dismissing it.
Also, how many times does it have to be pointed out that your interpretation of the referendum result is neither the only one now nor even the only one at the time? It's a complete nonsense. No Deal may indeed by the approach shared by many Leave supporters but certainly not all of them, and even if it were then the duty of MPs is to act in what they believe to be in the best interests of the country: if all available and reliable evidence goes against No Deal then it would be irresponsible for MPs to pursue that regardless.
They simply highlight the period of change. There is no evidence anything in the doom & gloom stories is permanent. And since it's all prediction, something that can't be proven, it's equally true they also have a total lack of substance. Maybe if you could successfully refute then you'd be less bored, otherwise perhaps best not to dismiss the the more optimistic, common sense forecasts.
All of the "common sense" forecasts that you refer to have been already utterly refuted, and are devoid of any economic legitimacy. It's not my fault that you haven't dug into this.
The simple fact is that a No Deal exit does the UK no favours at all and will likely do a great deal of harm. Even if it turns out that the worst excesses of prediction aren't true, there is nothing to celebrate in "only" having a 2-3% hit to the economy as opposed to a ~9% hit.
The simple fact is that a No Deal exit does the UK no favours at all and will likely do a great deal of harm. Even if it turns out that the worst excesses of prediction aren't true, there is nothing to celebrate in "only" having a 2-3% hit to the economy as opposed to a ~9% hit.
My interpretation of the referendum result is correct, it was held with a simple question and the result obtained. Hardly changes things that others claim otherwise. If you think otherwise then maybe that's what's "a complete nonsense".
Leave supporters will either have hopes for a deal despite all evidence that one's not forthcoming or have accepted no-deal as the last resort left. Difficult to see another version of leaver.
And I repeat that the duty of MPs is to represent the view of the public, not push what they personally want or believe in. Otherwise the public has no democracy. It would be irresponsible for MPs to pursue their own agenda, or fail to inform the public so they can come to a reasonable opinion.
Leave supporters will either have hopes for a deal despite all evidence that one's not forthcoming or have accepted no-deal as the last resort left. Difficult to see another version of leaver.
And I repeat that the duty of MPs is to represent the view of the public, not push what they personally want or believe in. Otherwise the public has no democracy. It would be irresponsible for MPs to pursue their own agenda, or fail to inform the public so they can come to a reasonable opinion.
Another assertion that's utterly without substance: going back centuries, the duty of MPs has been to act in what *they* think is in the best interests of the country, and represent and be accountable to their constituents for the decisions they make. That's how the UK constitution works, both legally and in practice.
"I personally think after this catastrophe a vote ought to be taken on any deal any future government comes up with, it's not arrogant it's just common sense."
So. One of the criticisms of the referendum was that the issue (whether to remain in or leave the EU) was too complex. The pros and cons of each option were well outlined, but still it was (and still is) criticised as too complex for the electorate to decide.
Now, we have a document which runs to almost 600 pages which describes in detail how the country must conduct its affairs if it is to leave the EU with as little bother (to both sides) as possible. I've read about 60% of it and believe me, it is not easy reading. If this one isn't accepted, any revision (which is apparently not forthcoming anyway) will be equally if not more complex. But there are clamours to let the electorate vote on its acceptance.
Right. I think I've got it now.
So. One of the criticisms of the referendum was that the issue (whether to remain in or leave the EU) was too complex. The pros and cons of each option were well outlined, but still it was (and still is) criticised as too complex for the electorate to decide.
Now, we have a document which runs to almost 600 pages which describes in detail how the country must conduct its affairs if it is to leave the EU with as little bother (to both sides) as possible. I've read about 60% of it and believe me, it is not easy reading. If this one isn't accepted, any revision (which is apparently not forthcoming anyway) will be equally if not more complex. But there are clamours to let the electorate vote on its acceptance.
Right. I think I've got it now.
