ChatterBank3 mins 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
//"You should have your say on the Brexit deal in a referendum. And if you don't like the deal you should be able to reject it and choose to remain in Europe." //
From the link 3T. We didn't like the deal we were getting from the EU leeches that was getting worse year on year with no means of recourse. So we did choose........ to get out of their clutches.
From the link 3T. We didn't like the deal we were getting from the EU leeches that was getting worse year on year with no means of recourse. So we did choose........ to get out of their clutches.
Because the 48% of voters who didn't back Brexit are not currently being courted successfully by either of the main two political parties, and he is gambling on winning their votes, which (if it works) would substantially increase the Lib Dem share of the vote from what it is now.
It's a fairly sensible gamble, as it's an open target left by the two main parties and the Liberal Democrats don't have much else of a strategy to go on. Plus the Liberal Democrats don't have much to lose, as it were...
He is probably wrong as party loyalty has proved a lot stronger than they anticipated and their position did not change much in the local elections. But it's still probably a worthwhile punt for them all things considered.
It's a fairly sensible gamble, as it's an open target left by the two main parties and the Liberal Democrats don't have much else of a strategy to go on. Plus the Liberal Democrats don't have much to lose, as it were...
He is probably wrong as party loyalty has proved a lot stronger than they anticipated and their position did not change much in the local elections. But it's still probably a worthwhile punt for them all things considered.
bang on balders: http://
Brexiters should probably not get too het up about all this, because (a) Lib Dems are not going to be running the country in two months, and (b) what's so frightening about offering a second vote to the public once the shape and future of Brexit becomes known? Odds are that any deal will sail through anyway; and if not, would that not also be the Democratic will of the people?
Perhaps it is too near in the future, but all the same there is precedent for holding a referendum on the same question that was asked previously, with a different answer being offered second time around. This isn't about overturning or ignoring democracy -- or, at least, it doesn't have to be painted that way (no doubt Farron would be less keen to offer a second referendum if he weren't hoping for a different result), although it will rather depend on the question in that referendum, and what happens in the intervening negotiating process.
The main thing is to ensure that in the coming two years or so, we work towards implementing the will of the 2016 referendum and 2017 EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act -- but it doesn't seem to me to follow that we must stick to that course come what may, if it turns out that staying after all is suddenly an attractive proposition again.
Perhaps it is too near in the future, but all the same there is precedent for holding a referendum on the same question that was asked previously, with a different answer being offered second time around. This isn't about overturning or ignoring democracy -- or, at least, it doesn't have to be painted that way (no doubt Farron would be less keen to offer a second referendum if he weren't hoping for a different result), although it will rather depend on the question in that referendum, and what happens in the intervening negotiating process.
The main thing is to ensure that in the coming two years or so, we work towards implementing the will of the 2016 referendum and 2017 EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act -- but it doesn't seem to me to follow that we must stick to that course come what may, if it turns out that staying after all is suddenly an attractive proposition again.
Without looking at the link, I will explain it you you:
In his view (and in the view of more than a few) although "the people" voted narrowly for Brexit, no one knew, and still doesn't, what exactly the terms are going to be. So it seems reasonable to put the final terms to a vote, particularly as there may well be implications for employment, travel rights and goodness knows what else.
That is the thinking. It has been explained a few times, on several news channels, even. You don't have to agree with it, but there it is.
In his view (and in the view of more than a few) although "the people" voted narrowly for Brexit, no one knew, and still doesn't, what exactly the terms are going to be. So it seems reasonable to put the final terms to a vote, particularly as there may well be implications for employment, travel rights and goodness knows what else.
That is the thinking. It has been explained a few times, on several news channels, even. You don't have to agree with it, but there it is.
Just out of interest TTT, how much would your tune change if May, or whoever, came back from the negotiating table with the offer of being, effectively, out of the EU in name only? Still paying continued contributions of a few billion a year, still accepting free movement, still deferring to the EU Courts on various matters, still accepting a reasonable proportion of EU law? Would you be like "oh well, we're out of the EU officially so that's all right" -- or would you want to have a meaningful say on what you think of that deal?
I rather suspect that it's the latter. In practice I doubt that the deal on offer will be remotely so "bad", from your perspective, but in theory it *could* be something resembling that. And in that case, for the government to argue that the referendum gave it a mandate for such a deal is so outrageous that of *course* you'd want another vote to tell them to *** off.
The same is true the other way round -- perhaps less urgently, but the principle still stands. A second referendum isn't mandatory, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of some hubris that you are going to get what you want.
I rather suspect that it's the latter. In practice I doubt that the deal on offer will be remotely so "bad", from your perspective, but in theory it *could* be something resembling that. And in that case, for the government to argue that the referendum gave it a mandate for such a deal is so outrageous that of *course* you'd want another vote to tell them to *** off.
The same is true the other way round -- perhaps less urgently, but the principle still stands. A second referendum isn't mandatory, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of some hubris that you are going to get what you want.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Editor's Blog11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles66 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 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.