Crosswords4 mins ago
Why Do They Keep Saying "no Deal Legislation"?
146 Answers
It's a bill to compell the government to ask for an extension. No deal is not even mentioned in it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//If a way to leave the EU can be found that honours the result of the referendum, respects the narrowness of the margin,…//
Let’s try again then Jim (without, hopefully, sounding too much like Zacs), how would the narrowness of the margin have been respected had it been 52:48 to Remain? Last time I asked you suggested that carrying on exactly as before would have done so. So why should the narrowness of a Leave vote be similarly respected?
//The EU said some time ago- that there would be no further extensions after 31st October, unless there was a good reason for the request.
Have I missed something, or is there a good reason other than just stalling.//
You may have missed something Dave. You may have missed that we continue to pay about £1bn a month for the privilege of remaining and the EU also sees their tactics as eventually, ensuring that one way or another, we remain shackled indefinitely.
Let’s try again then Jim (without, hopefully, sounding too much like Zacs), how would the narrowness of the margin have been respected had it been 52:48 to Remain? Last time I asked you suggested that carrying on exactly as before would have done so. So why should the narrowness of a Leave vote be similarly respected?
//The EU said some time ago- that there would be no further extensions after 31st October, unless there was a good reason for the request.
Have I missed something, or is there a good reason other than just stalling.//
You may have missed something Dave. You may have missed that we continue to pay about £1bn a month for the privilege of remaining and the EU also sees their tactics as eventually, ensuring that one way or another, we remain shackled indefinitely.
// ... we continue to pay about £1bn a month for the privilege of remaining ... //
Closer to between £600 million and £750 million ( https:/
// how would the narrowness of the margin have been respected had it been 52:48 to Remain? //
I don't understand why you need to ask a question again that I have already answered clearly several times. Still, let me try: The UK would have continued to be a member of the EU, but would not have chosen to join Schengen, the Euro, give back the rebate, cede our veto rights, etc etc. All of this would ensure that the UK would have continued to "soft remain". Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation, but as far as I can see this would ensure that the "Remain" result was accepted whilst also making sure that some of the "Leave" concerns were taken seriously.
As Farage famously said prior to result, and presumably now regrets saying, 52:48 for Remain would have been seen by him at least as "unfinished business". I would not at all have been surprised if he took that promise seriously, continued to campaign vociferously for leaving, and may even have been able to embrace the frustration of a narrow loss to continue to make UKIP, as was, a relevant and strengthening force in UK politics.
Closer to between £600 million and £750 million ( https:/
// how would the narrowness of the margin have been respected had it been 52:48 to Remain? //
I don't understand why you need to ask a question again that I have already answered clearly several times. Still, let me try: The UK would have continued to be a member of the EU, but would not have chosen to join Schengen, the Euro, give back the rebate, cede our veto rights, etc etc. All of this would ensure that the UK would have continued to "soft remain". Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation, but as far as I can see this would ensure that the "Remain" result was accepted whilst also making sure that some of the "Leave" concerns were taken seriously.
As Farage famously said prior to result, and presumably now regrets saying, 52:48 for Remain would have been seen by him at least as "unfinished business". I would not at all have been surprised if he took that promise seriously, continued to campaign vociferously for leaving, and may even have been able to embrace the frustration of a narrow loss to continue to make UKIP, as was, a relevant and strengthening force in UK politics.
Jim, you’ve been satisfied that you understood it previously – but ….if you understand democracy you wouldn’t want to live in a country that embraces an alternative system so why are you so eager to encourage something so precious and so fundamental to a fair and civilised society be ridden roughshod over?
Well, what do you expect me to say? "Yes I love destroying democracy, it's even my fetish"? Of course not. It's a nonsense.
I've explained my position plenty of times. It has nothing to do with wanting to run roughshod over democracy. You can't expect me to engage with questions that fundamentally mistake my position.
I've explained my position plenty of times. It has nothing to do with wanting to run roughshod over democracy. You can't expect me to engage with questions that fundamentally mistake my position.
I'm not doing any such thing. It's a democratic principle that no electorate should be held hostage by a past version of itself. This doesn't mean that votes should just be straight-up ignored, which I never have proposed and never will propose. But it does mean that proposing a future referendum is entirely consistent with democratic principles.
The vote in 2016 went against me, it is true, but it is a principle of democracy that I can continue to argue my case in spite of that defeat, and in future maybe even argue my case in a second referendum. I've lost count of the number of times I've pointed out to you that a second referendum was even originally a part of the case for holding the first referendum from Leave supporters. See, for example, articles by David Davis on the matter in 2013 (I've linked to it before). Or there's this, from Dominic Cummings, of all people:
Interviewer: "In the event of a [Leave] vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of the deal?"
Cummings: "I think that it's a distinct possibility, yes... and we obviously wouldn't oppose that... I think there's a strong democratic case for it."
(quote somewhat abridged, but the full source is below)
https:/
For a while, at least, there was broad consensus amongst prominent Leave supporters that a future referendum on the terms of the deal (with the clear assumption that rejecting the deal meant rejecting Brexit altogether), was not only democratic but also desirable.
So, no. I neither want to run roughshod over democracy, nor am I doing so. It's unfortunate that the debate has become so polarised that any opposition to leaving is labelled anti-democratic, but that is the present state of politics. It belongs in the same dustbin as the utterly unfair accusation that Leave voters are/were racist.
The vote in 2016 went against me, it is true, but it is a principle of democracy that I can continue to argue my case in spite of that defeat, and in future maybe even argue my case in a second referendum. I've lost count of the number of times I've pointed out to you that a second referendum was even originally a part of the case for holding the first referendum from Leave supporters. See, for example, articles by David Davis on the matter in 2013 (I've linked to it before). Or there's this, from Dominic Cummings, of all people:
Interviewer: "In the event of a [Leave] vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of the deal?"
Cummings: "I think that it's a distinct possibility, yes... and we obviously wouldn't oppose that... I think there's a strong democratic case for it."
(quote somewhat abridged, but the full source is below)
https:/
For a while, at least, there was broad consensus amongst prominent Leave supporters that a future referendum on the terms of the deal (with the clear assumption that rejecting the deal meant rejecting Brexit altogether), was not only democratic but also desirable.
So, no. I neither want to run roughshod over democracy, nor am I doing so. It's unfortunate that the debate has become so polarised that any opposition to leaving is labelled anti-democratic, but that is the present state of politics. It belongs in the same dustbin as the utterly unfair accusation that Leave voters are/were racist.
Jim, //It's a democratic principle that no electorate should be held hostage by a past version of itself.//
A past version isn’t past until its past…. and this one hasn’t been implemented yet.
That’s as far as I got with your post - and that's as far as I'm going to get because I know full well I've heard it all before and it's unlikely to be any more rational or less wonky than the rest.
A past version isn’t past until its past…. and this one hasn’t been implemented yet.
That’s as far as I got with your post - and that's as far as I'm going to get because I know full well I've heard it all before and it's unlikely to be any more rational or less wonky than the rest.
Yesterday was the past. Even an hour ago was the past. I can see the point you're making but it's simply wrong. The electorate three years ago and the electorate today are different. In some cases literally so. There are plenty of people who were under 18 then, and so couldn't vote in 2016, who now can. There are plenty of people then, who didn't vote in 2016, who now might after all. There are plenty of people then, who *did* vote in 2016, who might choose not to vote in future. There are people who did vote in 2016 to Remain who might now choose to leave, and there are people who voted in 2016 to Leave who now might vote to remain.
You should have persisted with my post further: as I pointed out, the idea of a second vote was never something that disturbed Brexit supporters, even some of the most prominent ones, then. Nor should it now.
You should have persisted with my post further: as I pointed out, the idea of a second vote was never something that disturbed Brexit supporters, even some of the most prominent ones, then. Nor should it now.
As an aside, I'll continue to make all the points I think I need to make whether or not you read them. If you want to argue those points, that's fair enough and indeed is the entire point of debate. If you want to ignore those points, that too is your choice. But there's nothing to be gained by that, for anyone.
A second referendum is fine- after the first one is carried out and settled. That is democracy. It is not "in the past" as it hasn't been done yet, it is in the future and saying some people where too young to vote, is irrelevant. That is just an excuse to dither and dally until the "right" answer turns up.
It was a legal and valid decision and needs to be honoured.
Surely, Jim, even from your point of view... if we had another referendum tomorrow, Remain won, and we stuck with that... you can see how dishonest it would be, and why a lot of people would see no point in voting again.
Trust, confidence, integrity, honesty.... are more important than self-entitlement. Surely?
It was a legal and valid decision and needs to be honoured.
Surely, Jim, even from your point of view... if we had another referendum tomorrow, Remain won, and we stuck with that... you can see how dishonest it would be, and why a lot of people would see no point in voting again.
Trust, confidence, integrity, honesty.... are more important than self-entitlement. Surely?
// Surely, Jim, even from your point of view, if we had another referendum tomorrow, Remain won, and we stuck with that, you can see how dishonest it would be, and why a lot of people would see no point in voting again. // (my italics)
Yes, I would be worried about that, Pixie. But the part of your quote I've put in italics is key. A consequence of my claim that the 2016 decision is reversible is that a future referendum in favour of remaining would also be reversible, if the country so decides in future. So you *wouldn't* be stuck with that, and as long as there is a sizeable chunk of the electorate that wants to Leave the EU, no matter how, then that chunk will always have the opportunity to press their case, win an election and/or a future referendum, and implement that decision. It would be utterly hypocritical indeed to argue that the 2016 referendum can be reversed but the second referendum I'm calling for would be sacrosanct.
On the subject of honesty, too. The great lie of the 2016 referendum was that it was called to resolve the issue. It was called instead to bury it, to kill it, to shut up the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party. It backfired spectacularly, as we know. Had the referendum been held on the more honest position of not just saying "this is your decision, and we will implement it", but also seriously preparing for either outcome and having a full plan in place should the vote have been to Leave, then we would not be in this mess. None of that happened. I will never forgive David Cameron for calling a referendum he had no intention of honouring himself.
For my part -- and as I think you and Naomi will also remember -- I accepted the defeat in 2016. Even now I would still accept seeing us leave the EU, as long as it is in a way that carries the country with it. There is no evidence that leaving No Deal achieves that.
Yes, I would be worried about that, Pixie. But the part of your quote I've put in italics is key. A consequence of my claim that the 2016 decision is reversible is that a future referendum in favour of remaining would also be reversible, if the country so decides in future. So you *wouldn't* be stuck with that, and as long as there is a sizeable chunk of the electorate that wants to Leave the EU, no matter how, then that chunk will always have the opportunity to press their case, win an election and/or a future referendum, and implement that decision. It would be utterly hypocritical indeed to argue that the 2016 referendum can be reversed but the second referendum I'm calling for would be sacrosanct.
On the subject of honesty, too. The great lie of the 2016 referendum was that it was called to resolve the issue. It was called instead to bury it, to kill it, to shut up the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party. It backfired spectacularly, as we know. Had the referendum been held on the more honest position of not just saying "this is your decision, and we will implement it", but also seriously preparing for either outcome and having a full plan in place should the vote have been to Leave, then we would not be in this mess. None of that happened. I will never forgive David Cameron for calling a referendum he had no intention of honouring himself.
For my part -- and as I think you and Naomi will also remember -- I accepted the defeat in 2016. Even now I would still accept seeing us leave the EU, as long as it is in a way that carries the country with it. There is no evidence that leaving No Deal achieves that.
There is "no evidence" or proof, of anything, Jim. Other than that the country as a whole have decided to leave. It would be far more damaging now to ignore it and keep holding votes.
Polls, opinions, studies etc... I've no doubt you can find any number you like to support your views. But it is all supposition and prediction.
Even if I had voted to remain, myself, I would be entirely embarrassed about not only the delays and uncertainty because of it, but would hate to see it ignored in the long-term. I never have really trusted politicians and sadly, they are only proving me right, so far. Not a great standard for the future of any country.
Polls, opinions, studies etc... I've no doubt you can find any number you like to support your views. But it is all supposition and prediction.
Even if I had voted to remain, myself, I would be entirely embarrassed about not only the delays and uncertainty because of it, but would hate to see it ignored in the long-term. I never have really trusted politicians and sadly, they are only proving me right, so far. Not a great standard for the future of any country.
We have different standards of what constitutes evidence, it is clear. Polls are a key part of the picture as long as they are treated with the proper degree of scepticism. But you shouldn't need a poll to tell you that the country remains as divided as it was in 2016, and perhaps even more so.
If we leave with No Deal, or if we cancel Article 50 notification, then about half the country will be furious. How they express that fury nobody can say. It may depend on which side ends up losing.
// [If I'd voted remain] I would be entirely embarrassed about not only the delays and uncertainty... //
I'm not sure I'd call myself embarrassed but I'm certainly saddened about it. But we are here now anyway. And the fact still remains that, whether or not you personally accept it, there is a legitimate reason to be seriously concerned that No Deal is a resolution that only worsens the situation, and resolves nothing. I will continue to push back against it.
If we leave with No Deal, or if we cancel Article 50 notification, then about half the country will be furious. How they express that fury nobody can say. It may depend on which side ends up losing.
// [If I'd voted remain] I would be entirely embarrassed about not only the delays and uncertainty... //
I'm not sure I'd call myself embarrassed but I'm certainly saddened about it. But we are here now anyway. And the fact still remains that, whether or not you personally accept it, there is a legitimate reason to be seriously concerned that No Deal is a resolution that only worsens the situation, and resolves nothing. I will continue to push back against it.
Yesterday *was* the past. There is no spin about that. None at all.
An Hour ago was the past, too. An hour ago, Jo Johnson was a minister and Luciana Berger was an independent MP. right now, Jo Johnson just quit and will stand down as an MP, and Berge joined the Lib Dems. Who is to say what will happen in the next hour, and what conclusions people will draw from it?
Whether or not it's spin that "yesterday is the past", though -- 2016 certainly is. There is no spinning whatsoever in anything I have said about why the electorate may have, and indeed has, changed since then. There is simply no basis in any democracy for the assertion that a decision must be implemented, and then presumably given a trial period of a few years, before the electorate can be finally held "free" to change its mind.
An Hour ago was the past, too. An hour ago, Jo Johnson was a minister and Luciana Berger was an independent MP. right now, Jo Johnson just quit and will stand down as an MP, and Berge joined the Lib Dems. Who is to say what will happen in the next hour, and what conclusions people will draw from it?
Whether or not it's spin that "yesterday is the past", though -- 2016 certainly is. There is no spinning whatsoever in anything I have said about why the electorate may have, and indeed has, changed since then. There is simply no basis in any democracy for the assertion that a decision must be implemented, and then presumably given a trial period of a few years, before the electorate can be finally held "free" to change its mind.
Let's go with "proof" rather than evidence, then. You are a scientist... we "know" the country wants to leave. The margins don't matter in the slightest, it was a binary vote.
And no, it is in the future, not the past. You can't delay, either and prevaricate (not you, personally) and then claim it was "too long ago" and isn't relevant any more!
And no, it is in the future, not the past. You can't delay, either and prevaricate (not you, personally) and then claim it was "too long ago" and isn't relevant any more!
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.