Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Would You Back A Second Referendum
I would not and if one was implemented I won’t vote again, there’s calls for another one, what happened to democracy ?
Answers
Yes I would vote as its a vote hard fought for and a privilege which should not be ignored. What's the point of criticising what's going on in the country then not voting? I would vote again and I would change my vote to remain unless there was a choice of leave with no deal and I would vote for that.. The 2016 vote was done purely on conjecture ,what was going to happen...
09:17 Mon 21st Oct 2019
//Saying the EU are our biggest trading partners is clearly correct //
As is saying //We are net contributors. We buy more from them than they buy from us. If they didn’t they’d have happily waved us goodbye. Not difficult to see why they haven’t. How they love our money. //
... but you left much of that out in your response. Can't think why ....
As is saying //We are net contributors. We buy more from them than they buy from us. If they didn’t they’d have happily waved us goodbye. Not difficult to see why they haven’t. How they love our money. //
... but you left much of that out in your response. Can't think why ....
As an aside, the idea that the EU would be waving goodbye to us if the trade balance were the other way round is equally nonsensical. I think you have made points in the past about how we are net contributors to the EU budget may make them want to keep us. That is debatable, but even granting that it might be true, that has nothing to do with the trade balance: the EU budget is entirely separate from the trading relationship.
// I've no doubt whatsoever that a new question would be worded to split the Leave vote, ensuring that Remain triumphs. //
That's only a possibility if the referendum is between three options. As yet, though, I don't think any referendum in history has been anything other than between two options. I can't say I blame you for your pessimism here, but right now there's no majority in Parliament even for the principle of a second referendum, let alone one that is deliberately designed to use "First Past the Post" tactics to engineer a result.
That's only a possibility if the referendum is between three options. As yet, though, I don't think any referendum in history has been anything other than between two options. I can't say I blame you for your pessimism here, but right now there's no majority in Parliament even for the principle of a second referendum, let alone one that is deliberately designed to use "First Past the Post" tactics to engineer a result.
I make no secret of the fact that I think the whole Brexit project, in its current form at least -- and probably any other form -- is bad for the UK. But I do not intentionally spin. I may get things wrong, or accidentally misinterpret them, but that's a completely different phenomenon.
I'm sick of you reading malice and duplicity into my posts. There is none and there never will be.
I'm sick of you reading malice and duplicity into my posts. There is none and there never will be.
Tony Benn was a champion for democracy.
The Briexit MPs should be making much of this in the Commons but to the country through the media.
Ask the powerful five questions:
WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?
The Briexit MPs should be making much of this in the Commons but to the country through the media.
Ask the powerful five questions:
WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?
//That's only a possibility if the referendum is between three options.//
Not so. The options suggested on the back of Mrs May’s deal were: Accept the deal on offer, or Remain. Since both Leavers and Remainers generally regarded that deal as poor, some Leavers would have voted Remain thereby splitting the Leave vote. No Deal should always be an option – but it never will be because leaving isn’t, and never was, the intention of the powers that be. The whole thing has been a stitch up from the start and quite shamefully, that has been encouraged by those equally duplicitous.
Not so. The options suggested on the back of Mrs May’s deal were: Accept the deal on offer, or Remain. Since both Leavers and Remainers generally regarded that deal as poor, some Leavers would have voted Remain thereby splitting the Leave vote. No Deal should always be an option – but it never will be because leaving isn’t, and never was, the intention of the powers that be. The whole thing has been a stitch up from the start and quite shamefully, that has been encouraged by those equally duplicitous.
// No Deal should always be an option ... //
Fair enough that you argue that. I did wonder if this is what you had in mind. But I don't see why an explicit "no deal" exit should ever be a seen as something to explicitly vote for. Quite apart anything else, a vote that, as JD had it, would be meant to tell the EU to "get stuffed" can never be in anybody's best interests.
Would it be a fairer referendum, in your opinion, to have a vote that was a straight up-or-down vote on the Withdrawal Agreement, where "yes" accepts it, and "no" hands the matter back to Parliament/government, rather than forcing us to Remain?
Fair enough that you argue that. I did wonder if this is what you had in mind. But I don't see why an explicit "no deal" exit should ever be a seen as something to explicitly vote for. Quite apart anything else, a vote that, as JD had it, would be meant to tell the EU to "get stuffed" can never be in anybody's best interests.
Would it be a fairer referendum, in your opinion, to have a vote that was a straight up-or-down vote on the Withdrawal Agreement, where "yes" accepts it, and "no" hands the matter back to Parliament/government, rather than forcing us to Remain?