Law1 min ago
Strong And Stable
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. 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.
Because they're selecting the options, for all you know either way the vote goes it's an option they'd opt for. (i'm not specifically talking about these tory rebels)
I'm not saying we're living in a dictatorship, but this government certainly doesn't seem democratic.
All this string pulling / time wasting / uncertainty about if we're going to have a no deal or a no brexit..
If democracy was fair then we'd be out of the EU by now. There would be no lies, we'd know all the options and the consequences of such.
The whole charade is a sham.
I'm not saying we're living in a dictatorship, but this government certainly doesn't seem democratic.
All this string pulling / time wasting / uncertainty about if we're going to have a no deal or a no brexit..
If democracy was fair then we'd be out of the EU by now. There would be no lies, we'd know all the options and the consequences of such.
The whole charade is a sham.
If i say to you we're having sausage and mash or Shepard pie, you get to vote.. Makes you feel like you have some kind of choice.. but in reality, you don't.. I've secretly got both pre-prepared.
In reality you want a curry.. but that's not even in question because you've not been offered the choice.
In reality you want a curry.. but that's not even in question because you've not been offered the choice.
I want Parliament to serve the best interests of the country. As far as I can see -- and as far as every reputable study shows -- delivering Brexit in the manner the government intends, or at the speed you wish it to be, is very much *not* in the best interests of this country.
This isn't about "having it all my own way". It's my response to what I've observed over the last few years.
This isn't about "having it all my own way". It's my response to what I've observed over the last few years.
well that's exactly it, isn't it. People talk about best interests for the country, completely forgetting the mahoosive range of individuals in it.
The country has no best interest.
It's full of scattered thoughts / opinions and wishes.
When the PM says "best interest of the country" what she really means is her own self worth, pay check and cabinet.
The country has no best interest.
It's full of scattered thoughts / opinions and wishes.
When the PM says "best interest of the country" what she really means is her own self worth, pay check and cabinet.
I'm curious how that's even a rebuttal of anything. The majority in 2016 disagreed with me, to be sure, and I reluctantly accepted that at the time. But that was three years ago. Democracies are free to reevaluate their decisions. What was it David Davis once said? "If a democracy cannot change its mind, then it ceases to be a democracy." He was correct; oddly, he seems less keen on accepting this argument now that it works against him.
There is no time limit to this, either. A letter in the Times today points out one remarkable example from the cradle of Democracy, ancient Athens, where they held a vote one day and then the very next day reversed their decision. We've had three years, in which time it should have become clear that, at the very least, the current direction in which Brexit is being pursued is completely unsatisfactory.
I am, admittedly, arguing for reversing or stopping the process altogether, but how can I do anything else? It's what I believe in. And, even though you do not, then, in the first place, we agree that Parliament must reject Theresa May's deal, and in the second place we should both agree that Parliament will need to find a different direction. It will need to create the time needed to do this, and if not, then you are grossly underestimating the effects of that decision.
There is no time limit to this, either. A letter in the Times today points out one remarkable example from the cradle of Democracy, ancient Athens, where they held a vote one day and then the very next day reversed their decision. We've had three years, in which time it should have become clear that, at the very least, the current direction in which Brexit is being pursued is completely unsatisfactory.
I am, admittedly, arguing for reversing or stopping the process altogether, but how can I do anything else? It's what I believe in. And, even though you do not, then, in the first place, we agree that Parliament must reject Theresa May's deal, and in the second place we should both agree that Parliament will need to find a different direction. It will need to create the time needed to do this, and if not, then you are grossly underestimating the effects of that decision.
"Ah here we go again. So when Parliament over rides something you (and a majority) agree with I will remind you of this."
Feel free to, ymb. Right now, my argument is very self-serving. I dare say that there's no point in telling you that this is a coincidence, but it genuinely is. All I can say is that there's a difference between being unhappy at a decision, and objecting to it on principle. I was unhappy at the 2016 referendum result, but I certainly didn't, at the time, have any objections to it, and indeed I was arguing on this site for the referendum to be held in the first place.
Since then I've felt completely disgusted -- as, I note, is mostly everyone else on AB -- by Theresa May's approach over the last two years. I want her Withdrawal Agreement to be defeated; we disagree on what happens next, but in that at least everyone supports Parliamentary sovereignty. As far as I can see, though, the most plausible resolution to this mess is *not* just to press on regardless but to find some way to at least give us time to undo the damage of Theresa May's approach. That may mean going back to the people, or it may not, but trying to leave on March 29th with no idea of the destination or future, and no meaningful attempt to prepare for it, seems reckless in the extreme.
Feel free to, ymb. Right now, my argument is very self-serving. I dare say that there's no point in telling you that this is a coincidence, but it genuinely is. All I can say is that there's a difference between being unhappy at a decision, and objecting to it on principle. I was unhappy at the 2016 referendum result, but I certainly didn't, at the time, have any objections to it, and indeed I was arguing on this site for the referendum to be held in the first place.
Since then I've felt completely disgusted -- as, I note, is mostly everyone else on AB -- by Theresa May's approach over the last two years. I want her Withdrawal Agreement to be defeated; we disagree on what happens next, but in that at least everyone supports Parliamentary sovereignty. As far as I can see, though, the most plausible resolution to this mess is *not* just to press on regardless but to find some way to at least give us time to undo the damage of Theresa May's approach. That may mean going back to the people, or it may not, but trying to leave on March 29th with no idea of the destination or future, and no meaningful attempt to prepare for it, seems reckless in the extreme.
// If May loses again... it looks like NO Deal is very much on the cards. Any attempt to delay the process will cause uproar. //
You may be right, although for my part I don't understand why it's so urgent to have Brexit *now* as opposed to *successfully*. If it is delayed, but the outcome is far more favourable, then was it not worth waiting for?
More seriously, I suppose the problem is that "no deal" doesn't hold any fears whatsoever for its supporters. I again disagree with this, but all I can say is, if that is indeed the direction in which we go, then I sincerely hope that I will be completely and utterly embarrassed and shown up as wrong this time next year.
You may be right, although for my part I don't understand why it's so urgent to have Brexit *now* as opposed to *successfully*. If it is delayed, but the outcome is far more favourable, then was it not worth waiting for?
More seriously, I suppose the problem is that "no deal" doesn't hold any fears whatsoever for its supporters. I again disagree with this, but all I can say is, if that is indeed the direction in which we go, then I sincerely hope that I will be completely and utterly embarrassed and shown up as wrong this time next year.
From the article..
// There's a big problem facing members of Parliament who want to avoid a no-deal Brexit.
They can't just show there is a majority in the House of Commons against no deal - they need to prove there is a majority in favour of an alternative outcome.
…..
The idea behind all this parliamentary manoeuvring is to demonstrate that there is a clear majority in the House of Commons against no deal.
But none of it, taken in isolation, will prevent the Article 50 clock ticking away until it stops at the end of March. //
As there's no chance of May's deal being accepted, my guess is that the deadline is going to be extended. I know it can't happen without the other member's agreement, but I bet that's what she'll be trying to get next week.
// There's a big problem facing members of Parliament who want to avoid a no-deal Brexit.
They can't just show there is a majority in the House of Commons against no deal - they need to prove there is a majority in favour of an alternative outcome.
…..
The idea behind all this parliamentary manoeuvring is to demonstrate that there is a clear majority in the House of Commons against no deal.
But none of it, taken in isolation, will prevent the Article 50 clock ticking away until it stops at the end of March. //
As there's no chance of May's deal being accepted, my guess is that the deadline is going to be extended. I know it can't happen without the other member's agreement, but I bet that's what she'll be trying to get next week.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching50 mins ago
