Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Do They Have The News Channel In Limp Dum Hq?
43 Answers
http://
The people voted brexit, Parliament backed it overwhelmingly, the PM has issued A50. So why is Tim nice but dim talking about another brexit referendum?
The people voted brexit, Parliament backed it overwhelmingly, the PM has issued A50. So why is Tim nice but dim talking about another brexit referendum?
Answers
It is called blurring the lines 3T, a fudge, another route for the entitled to maintain their governance over what the rest of us want, whilst making it look as if it is in our best interests and nothing to do with their desire to steer the agenda as always. We have tolerated the insidious "we know best attitude" of the few for long enough but have seen through the...
15:14 Wed 17th May 2017
I'd joint the other 17million in revolution jim. We have fought for decades to free ourselves from tyranny, to long to have it snatched by popinjay politicians to protect their gravy train. You keep going on about a vote but on what? we are already on the path out, so there is no mechanism to prevent that. The final deal must be as good as we can get but we can't accept or reject it, we can't vote to stay, I just don't understand the mechanism you and others are harping on about.
It is called blurring the lines 3T, a fudge, another route for the entitled to maintain their governance over what the rest of us want, whilst making it look as if it is in our best interests and nothing to do with their desire to steer the agenda as always. We have tolerated the insidious "we know best attitude" of the few for long enough but have seen through the veil of carefully woven deceit and said enough.
"...we are already on the path out, so there is no mechanism to prevent that."
This is open to dispute -- in theory. I don't think that Article 50 is regarded as legally terminal, although I'm not sure I'm aware of all the arguments. Still, if nothing else then Article 50(3) talks about "extending" the period between triggering Article 50 and actually leaving. It stands to reason that this extension could be effectively indefinite.
Morally of course is a different matter, and I certainly accept that you'd need a very good reason to back out at this point.
Still, the fact is that, short of revolution, you either accept what you are given no matter how awful it is, or you are given a say. As long as that say is itself not somehow terminal, ie not a "this deal or no deal" question, where what "no deal" means depends on whoever's in charge at the time, then you shouldn't be afraid of such a say. It will probably end up just confirming our departure on favourable terms.
I suppose the ideal referendum as I'd see it would be something like: yes to this deal; no to this deal, and go back to the table; no to this deal, and leave anyway. If phrased that way, two out of three options lead to us leaving, and the third leads to us trying to get a more acceptable deal. Again, I doubt that the Lib Dems have this referendum in mind, but ah well.
This is open to dispute -- in theory. I don't think that Article 50 is regarded as legally terminal, although I'm not sure I'm aware of all the arguments. Still, if nothing else then Article 50(3) talks about "extending" the period between triggering Article 50 and actually leaving. It stands to reason that this extension could be effectively indefinite.
Morally of course is a different matter, and I certainly accept that you'd need a very good reason to back out at this point.
Still, the fact is that, short of revolution, you either accept what you are given no matter how awful it is, or you are given a say. As long as that say is itself not somehow terminal, ie not a "this deal or no deal" question, where what "no deal" means depends on whoever's in charge at the time, then you shouldn't be afraid of such a say. It will probably end up just confirming our departure on favourable terms.
I suppose the ideal referendum as I'd see it would be something like: yes to this deal; no to this deal, and go back to the table; no to this deal, and leave anyway. If phrased that way, two out of three options lead to us leaving, and the third leads to us trying to get a more acceptable deal. Again, I doubt that the Lib Dems have this referendum in mind, but ah well.
Well, the EU still hasn't let go either, so perhaps asking to stay in will be met with a quick acceptance. Or perhaps not.
At any rate, Article 50 has been triggered, and we should now get on with working towards leaving. But what happens after is still in the future, and who knows what may change between times? I'm 99% sure that in a few years we'll have left the EU, probably more sure than that even because I don't actually see the will to change. But still, it seems sensible to leave options open, just in case. Anyone saying that we are now stuck with leaving is wrong. That doesn't mean that we will end up staying after all.
At any rate, Article 50 has been triggered, and we should now get on with working towards leaving. But what happens after is still in the future, and who knows what may change between times? I'm 99% sure that in a few years we'll have left the EU, probably more sure than that even because I don't actually see the will to change. But still, it seems sensible to leave options open, just in case. Anyone saying that we are now stuck with leaving is wrong. That doesn't mean that we will end up staying after all.
“…what's so frightening about offering a second vote to the public once the shape and future of Brexit becomes known?”
It’s not frightening, jim, it’s puzzling. I understand that the choices on the LibDem’s referendum paper will be “Agree – go for it” and “Disagree – remain in the EU”.
So we’re back to my old chestnut which we’ve debated endlessly. I wasn’t asked about the shape of the departure, I was just asked whether I wanted to leave or remain. I (and enough others) voted to leave. I don’t care what shape our departure takes because the worst case scenario (in fact the best case, as far as I’m concerned) is that we simply begin to behave like most other normal (i.e. non-EU countries). The LibDems obviously don’t fancy that and want to reverse the result of the referendum.
It’s not frightening, jim, it’s puzzling. I understand that the choices on the LibDem’s referendum paper will be “Agree – go for it” and “Disagree – remain in the EU”.
So we’re back to my old chestnut which we’ve debated endlessly. I wasn’t asked about the shape of the departure, I was just asked whether I wanted to leave or remain. I (and enough others) voted to leave. I don’t care what shape our departure takes because the worst case scenario (in fact the best case, as far as I’m concerned) is that we simply begin to behave like most other normal (i.e. non-EU countries). The LibDems obviously don’t fancy that and want to reverse the result of the referendum.
Ah, but are you sure you speak for all the millions of Leave voters?
All I'm saying is that, in eg the scenario I described earlier, I'm sure all those who are happy not to have a say *now* will be more than angry (and justifiably so) if the deal on the table is basically "Remain" just in new clothing. In that case the Lib Dem's offer at NJ words it makes no sense of course -- "Remain in name or in practice?" -- but all the same, a referendum of sorts, a chance for the British people to vote on that deal, seems to me to make some sense.
I can see why you aren't agreeing. But that's because you are likely to get what you want anyway, so why risk it? If that changes... well, put it this way, I'd be surprised if it does change in the way needed, so it's all academic in the end.
The vote in 2016 binds us to a direction, but not an outcome. That's the way I see it, anyway.
All I'm saying is that, in eg the scenario I described earlier, I'm sure all those who are happy not to have a say *now* will be more than angry (and justifiably so) if the deal on the table is basically "Remain" just in new clothing. In that case the Lib Dem's offer at NJ words it makes no sense of course -- "Remain in name or in practice?" -- but all the same, a referendum of sorts, a chance for the British people to vote on that deal, seems to me to make some sense.
I can see why you aren't agreeing. But that's because you are likely to get what you want anyway, so why risk it? If that changes... well, put it this way, I'd be surprised if it does change in the way needed, so it's all academic in the end.
The vote in 2016 binds us to a direction, but not an outcome. That's the way I see it, anyway.
-- answer removed --
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.