Is There Any Further Point In "talks" Between Treason And Cob Et Al?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/cabinet-agrees-not-to-kill-off-brexit-talks-with-labour-and-debates-compromises-11719874
Both parties are only doing their best to thwart democracy, let's stop the pretense they are trying to move forward on this.

[Spicerack]

You're both talking with hindsight. Until Gina Miller and the courts got involved there was no question of Parliament having a vote on the result of the referendum.

[fiction-factory]

Talking with hindsight is better than being permanently blinkered

[1ozzy]

Thanks for the explanation Doug.

I might join in on more of these Brexit threads, now I know what it means.
I'm sure I'll have some deep and meaningful input which will help the mother country sort this rather nasty debacle.

[Spicerack]

You're just talking nonsense now, ff, because I proved you wrong. Grow up.

[1ozzy]

Feed him more manure Spicey, that will help in the growing process.

[douglas9401]

All help welcome Oz. :-)

[Kromovaracun]

//Until Gina Miller and the courts got involved there was no question of Parliament having a vote on the result of the referendum.//

We live in a parliamentary system, spicey. I'd say that rather outweighs anything Cameron's team put on a leaflet. The idea that this could have just been done without involving parliament is a childish fantasy.

[Spicerack]

Stop digging. What you said was wrong.

[Kromovaracun]

Devastating comeback there. That's me told.

[mushroom25]

//Brexit Day is currently to be Halloween, isn't it? I'm not sure we'd need an extension to do another referendum //

Brexit day is 24 weeks tomorrow. time needed to set up a referendum, 22 weeks. number of weeks of parliamentary recess, 10 weeks. time needed after the referendum to implement the result, ?????

even if there was a will in parliament to shorten the referendum process (most of which is question sense-checking out of parliament's control), the clock has already been run down.

we'll need another extension.

[Kromovaracun]

Oh, fair enough. I didn't realise the required time was that long.

[1ozzy]

Didn't all this Brexit hoo haa start in June 2016 when a referendum was held?

Guess AB Towers are happy, it's helped keep the site alive.

[mushroom25]

….. of course the above timescale makes no allowance for time required by the EU to approve any jointly brokered deal, which must occur before a second referendum (or there might need to be a third referendum if they reject it, and it needs to be tweaked....)

and as yet nobody can agree what the question would be; some say it must be 3 options but which - without deliberately setting one that would split one or other of the votes.....

[Peter Pedant]

// No. This whole thread is a farce.//

o well said that girl !

[Peter Pedant]

// Guess AB Towers are happy, it's helped keep the site alive.//
alive is a bit of an overstatement for some of the zombies who post on this site innit ?

[Peter Pedant]

// Devastating comeback there. That's me told.//
yeah keep quiet you !

have you noticed the poster who says numbers are bunk with one breath - and then 52% voted Brexit so suck it up - er suckers !

this sort of thing keeps me reading Ab

[1ozzy]

//alive is a bit of an overstatement//

Good point PP.

Maybe I should have said "ticking along"

[mushroom25]

//some of the zombies who post on this site..//

are you maybe thinking of the type of person referenced in a (now deleted) tweet by Matt Kelly of the New European, who insists that all brexit voters need to be followed by 2 helpers - one with a mop and bucket and one to replace the wet trousers?

[Quizmonster]

In case anyone may have wondered why I made the comment I did in my post at 16.19 on Tuesday, it was because of Youngmafbog's comment at 16.13.
Now that that has been asterisked out, making my response meaningless, I should explain that he had written the four-letter word normally used to designate a male bird!

[jim360]

// Until Gina Miller and the courts got involved there was no question of Parliament having a vote on the result of the referendum. //

Perhaps not, but there clearly should have been. After all, that's how the UK's Constitution works -- which is, in point of fact what "once the court got involved" actually means. It's no good citing a leaflet, that carries no legal weight (or any other weight, either), as somehow primary.

For reasons that defy proper explanation, Parliament decided to offer a choice to the people but forgot to bother preparing for either outcome of that choice. The fallout remains their fault, particularly Cameron's, but it also remains up to Parliament to sort through it all now that they've created this mess.