How Many "A"S In You Crossword...
Crosswords1 min ago
Owen Smith And Article 50....
81 Answers
so, what's he saying here?
http://
"you voted out. are you sure? are you really sure? are you really really really sure?"
i wonder what the "right" answer is this time?
http://
"you voted out. are you sure? are you really sure? are you really really really sure?"
i wonder what the "right" answer is this time?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. 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.
jim360 - //To be far, Andy, we did have two reruns of Tony Blair's first election. He won both of them. //
I think you know that comparison is not valid.
Parliamentary elections are a laid-down part of the democratic process, and are held at pre-determined times to give the electorate a voice. It is absolutely the raison d'etre of the system to give the populace a chance to change its government.
That is no way compares with a referendum, which is a one-off specific vote to give the electorate an individual choice in an issue deemed too important and far-reaching to simply be left to the government of the day - and in this case, that premise was well-founded.
So to assume you can have another referendum on the basis that you 'didn't know what you were voting for ...' the first time, is arrogance of the very highest order, and far from befitting a man who claims to represent the working people of the country.
I think you know that comparison is not valid.
Parliamentary elections are a laid-down part of the democratic process, and are held at pre-determined times to give the electorate a voice. It is absolutely the raison d'etre of the system to give the populace a chance to change its government.
That is no way compares with a referendum, which is a one-off specific vote to give the electorate an individual choice in an issue deemed too important and far-reaching to simply be left to the government of the day - and in this case, that premise was well-founded.
So to assume you can have another referendum on the basis that you 'didn't know what you were voting for ...' the first time, is arrogance of the very highest order, and far from befitting a man who claims to represent the working people of the country.
May knows that Boris Johnson is not really a true brexiter. He never expected the referendum to vote out, which explains his defeated demeanour when Leave actually won. He positioned himself in Leave to wound David Cameron and then take his job.
He is now tasked with navigating brexit, which he never really wanted. He has a choice, he can either push for that because the people have voted, or work on a fudge. My guess is the later.
He is now tasked with navigating brexit, which he never really wanted. He has a choice, he can either push for that because the people have voted, or work on a fudge. My guess is the later.
"So to assume you can have another referendum on the basis that you 'didn't know what you were voting for ...' the first time, is arrogance of the very highest order..."
Up to a point, I'd agree. But... wasn't this part of the argument for holding this referendum in the first place? That the people in the 1975 referendum didn't know that they were, ultimately, voting for a political union rather than an economic one? I've seen this argued several times on AB and elsewhere.
The main difference is one of timing. Owen Smith appears to be calling for a second referendum within a year or two of the first one. Even if you wanted the British electorate to "think again", that is way too soon by any stretch. But presumably no one would object to revisiting the subject, and holding a referendum on "Breverse" in 30 years or so, if the circumstances of Brexit were judged after the fact to be undesirable after all.
Also, yes, I was being a little facetious with that comparison. Still, as I say, we could be heading for a clash between our two forms of democracy anyway, depending on the timing and outcome of the next General Election.
Up to a point, I'd agree. But... wasn't this part of the argument for holding this referendum in the first place? That the people in the 1975 referendum didn't know that they were, ultimately, voting for a political union rather than an economic one? I've seen this argued several times on AB and elsewhere.
The main difference is one of timing. Owen Smith appears to be calling for a second referendum within a year or two of the first one. Even if you wanted the British electorate to "think again", that is way too soon by any stretch. But presumably no one would object to revisiting the subject, and holding a referendum on "Breverse" in 30 years or so, if the circumstances of Brexit were judged after the fact to be undesirable after all.
Also, yes, I was being a little facetious with that comparison. Still, as I say, we could be heading for a clash between our two forms of democracy anyway, depending on the timing and outcome of the next General Election.
Whilst in a perfect world, where all were accepting of the exit decision and merely wanted to ensure the government didn't sell the people out with an unacceptable set of agreements going forward, a vote on the new agreements would be supportable; in reality we wll know such a vote would merely be used to try to scupper any deal and thus Brexit.
Although maybe a goer if the second vote was, "accept this or pull out immediately with no future agreements in place".
As things are, referenda are rare, and we've no reason not to let the politicians take it from here. If they sell us out then new agreements can be torn up when politicians who value the country and it's people, get in.
I think Owen is simply trying hard to keep the Tories in as long as possible. Must be another right winger who's infiltrated the Labour party.
Although maybe a goer if the second vote was, "accept this or pull out immediately with no future agreements in place".
As things are, referenda are rare, and we've no reason not to let the politicians take it from here. If they sell us out then new agreements can be torn up when politicians who value the country and it's people, get in.
I think Owen is simply trying hard to keep the Tories in as long as possible. Must be another right winger who's infiltrated the Labour party.
jim360 - //Up to a point, I'd agree. But... wasn't this part of the argument for holding this referendum in the first place? That the people in the 1975 referendum didn't know that they were, ultimately, voting for a political union rather than an economic one? I've seen this argued several times on AB and elsewhere. //
That was one of the arguments - but it wasn't valid then, and it's not valid now.
You can't use 20/20 hindsight and say you didn't know what was going to happen ... of course you didn't!
At the time, the British people voted for economic and trading links, because that was what was offered. History shows that the EU has morphed into an empire-building monster with no accountability, but no-one knew that at the time, otherwise the result would have been different.
Again, my Blair argument comes into play. I was delighted when Tony Blair won - a new vision and a charismatic PM to carry it through. I didn't know he was going to turn into a power-mad war-crazy swivel-eyed loon, or I would not have voted for him.
Hindsight is wonderful - but in this case, Mr Smith is till using it (badly since it is a facile argument) to dress up the fact that he didn't like the result first time, and wants another go.
That was one of the arguments - but it wasn't valid then, and it's not valid now.
You can't use 20/20 hindsight and say you didn't know what was going to happen ... of course you didn't!
At the time, the British people voted for economic and trading links, because that was what was offered. History shows that the EU has morphed into an empire-building monster with no accountability, but no-one knew that at the time, otherwise the result would have been different.
Again, my Blair argument comes into play. I was delighted when Tony Blair won - a new vision and a charismatic PM to carry it through. I didn't know he was going to turn into a power-mad war-crazy swivel-eyed loon, or I would not have voted for him.
Hindsight is wonderful - but in this case, Mr Smith is till using it (badly since it is a facile argument) to dress up the fact that he didn't like the result first time, and wants another go.
A result of a referendum is not binding. It is a glorified opinion poll that no Government is obliged to enact.
So there is no real constitutional clash. The public have given two conflicting opinions. They voted for a Conservative in May 2015 that was pro EU, and then a year later the rejected by a narrow margin, the EU.
The Government have the power, and they will use it. They know public opinion is fickle, so they can ignore it when it suits them.
So there is no real constitutional clash. The public have given two conflicting opinions. They voted for a Conservative in May 2015 that was pro EU, and then a year later the rejected by a narrow margin, the EU.
The Government have the power, and they will use it. They know public opinion is fickle, so they can ignore it when it suits them.
"At the time, the British people voted for economic and trading links, because that was what was offered. History shows that the EU has morphed into an empire-building monster with no accountability, but no-one knew that at the time, otherwise the result would have been different. " - bang on Andy and that has now been reversed 40 years later.
"A result of a referendum is not binding. It is a glorified opinion poll that no Government is obliged to enact. " - technically correct but ignore this and the community charge riots will look like a toddlers tea party. Are you really prepared to ignore the will of the voters so arrogantly? Fortunately neither the PM nor the former PM were so stupid as to think that even though they were remainiacs. I think you've been imbibing too much Tibetan wheat grass gromit.
Tora,
Predicting what will happen is not supporting that cause. It is making a judgement on the available evidence. I predict Manchester City will win the League, but that is not my desired outcome.
So when I argue that Brexit won't happen, it is not my desire, but my assessment based on the House of Commons don't want it, so it won't happen.
Predicting what will happen is not supporting that cause. It is making a judgement on the available evidence. I predict Manchester City will win the League, but that is not my desired outcome.
So when I argue that Brexit won't happen, it is not my desire, but my assessment based on the House of Commons don't want it, so it won't happen.
Back to Owen Smith.
Seeing as large parts of the Labour Constituency voted for Brexit, I am not sure that saying you will fight not to invoke Article 50 is what his voters want to hear. As with his comments about having a little chat with ISIS, Mr Smith seems incredibly wet behind the ears to be contesting to be leader.
Seeing as large parts of the Labour Constituency voted for Brexit, I am not sure that saying you will fight not to invoke Article 50 is what his voters want to hear. As with his comments about having a little chat with ISIS, Mr Smith seems incredibly wet behind the ears to be contesting to be leader.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
News9 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Crosswords13 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.