Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Interesting Development
121 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Old_Geezer. 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.
Losers are still part of the country. They still have a voice. They still a right to shape the future, and to hold to account those who won. It's a nonsense to continue to blame this on the losers.
As to NJ's post -- you've been answered several times before. Not my fault you've ignored it so that you can continue to make the same point. The compromise with Remainers winning would have been quite clear: the UK would have remained only half-committed to the EU project, by not joining Schengen, not joining the Euro, retaining many other key opt-outs (eg, a veto on membership for Turkey), receiving a large rebate from our EU contributions, etc. There was never any question of losing these rights.
As to NJ's post -- you've been answered several times before. Not my fault you've ignored it so that you can continue to make the same point. The compromise with Remainers winning would have been quite clear: the UK would have remained only half-committed to the EU project, by not joining Schengen, not joining the Euro, retaining many other key opt-outs (eg, a veto on membership for Turkey), receiving a large rebate from our EU contributions, etc. There was never any question of losing these rights.
There is still no need to compromise... even with a split vote, it was just win/lose and opposite results wanted on each side. I am fairly confident if the results had been the other way around, remainers would not have been campaigning for three years to leave "as much as possible" to make it fair.
Jim, //Losers are still part of the country. They still have a voice. They still a right to shape the future//
They have no right to thwart democracy. None whatsoever. The losers are wholly to blame for the past three years of lies, deceit, and nonsense - and that includes Mrs May and her cronies. On principle I would be thorough ashamed to align myself to that.
They have no right to thwart democracy. None whatsoever. The losers are wholly to blame for the past three years of lies, deceit, and nonsense - and that includes Mrs May and her cronies. On principle I would be thorough ashamed to align myself to that.
Who here is aligning themselves with May and her "cronies"? Her approach alienated everybody, Remain and Leave alike.
Nor is fighting a No Deal Brexit "thwarting" democracy. Leave campaigners never wanted it in 2016; political parties weren't campaigning for it in 2017; and Parliament has rejected it three times. Even now Boris Johnson is mainly trying to use it as a threat to gain leverage -- or, at least, that is what he claims.
If you want specifically to leave with No Deal, then test its support with the public.
Nor is fighting a No Deal Brexit "thwarting" democracy. Leave campaigners never wanted it in 2016; political parties weren't campaigning for it in 2017; and Parliament has rejected it three times. Even now Boris Johnson is mainly trying to use it as a threat to gain leverage -- or, at least, that is what he claims.
If you want specifically to leave with No Deal, then test its support with the public.
"Nor is fighting a No Deal Brexit "thwarting" democracy."
But it clearly is. Brexit, deal or no deal, is what was voted for. Any attempt to prevent that, regardless if the tactic is forever extensions and never ending yaw yaw, is thwarting the democratic decision.
"Leave campaigners never wanted it in 2016; political parties weren't campaigning for it in 2017"
Of course not. The campaign was remain or leave. The way we actually left wasn't relevant, and clearly in the absence of a deal it would inevitably be no-deal. One assumed and trusted there wouldn't be tactics employed to ensure no acceptable deal would be considered, but the reality was that the EU refused to accept basic red lines and thus forced it.
"and Parliament has rejected it three times."
Parliament was obliged to reject the so called deal May came back with since it was a remain deal not a leave one. They had no right to reject a no deal exit as they were given no mandate to use it's possibility to thwart Brexit.
"Even now Boris Johnson is mainly trying to use it as a threat to gain leverage -- or, at least, that is what he claims."
Indeed, but we all know that the EU is likely to remain determined to thwart Brexit deals in the hope that the MPs who reject democracy can prevent it. So it's other, and most likely to be in practice, use is to end the antics of the EU, and their UK parliamentary supporters, and just exit, as we are well overdue to do.
But it clearly is. Brexit, deal or no deal, is what was voted for. Any attempt to prevent that, regardless if the tactic is forever extensions and never ending yaw yaw, is thwarting the democratic decision.
"Leave campaigners never wanted it in 2016; political parties weren't campaigning for it in 2017"
Of course not. The campaign was remain or leave. The way we actually left wasn't relevant, and clearly in the absence of a deal it would inevitably be no-deal. One assumed and trusted there wouldn't be tactics employed to ensure no acceptable deal would be considered, but the reality was that the EU refused to accept basic red lines and thus forced it.
"and Parliament has rejected it three times."
Parliament was obliged to reject the so called deal May came back with since it was a remain deal not a leave one. They had no right to reject a no deal exit as they were given no mandate to use it's possibility to thwart Brexit.
"Even now Boris Johnson is mainly trying to use it as a threat to gain leverage -- or, at least, that is what he claims."
Indeed, but we all know that the EU is likely to remain determined to thwart Brexit deals in the hope that the MPs who reject democracy can prevent it. So it's other, and most likely to be in practice, use is to end the antics of the EU, and their UK parliamentary supporters, and just exit, as we are well overdue to do.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
//The compromise with Remainers winning would have been quite clear: the UK would have remained only half-committed to the EU project, by not joining Schengen, not joining the Euro, retaining many other key opt-outs (eg, a veto on membership for Turkey), receiving a large rebate from our EU contributions, etc. There was never any question of losing these rights.//
Scarcely a compromise, Jim. The conditions you mention are exactly as they are now. So we would have continued precisely as we were. There would have been no "compromise" that satisfied the losing Leavers. There was never any suggestion that these rights would have been lost had we continued our membership, with or without a referendum (well, for so long as the EU deigned to allow them). Just a point of order, a veto over Turkey's membership is not specific to the UK. The acceptance of a new member requires unanimity so all 28 members effectively have a veto on any new membership. And just another point: Ireland has an opt out from Schengen and Denmark from the euro. Are these nations "half (or perhaps three quarters) committed" to the EU project. Or are they simply being sensible and maintaining as much control over their own affairs as the EU will allow them?
Scarcely a compromise, Jim. The conditions you mention are exactly as they are now. So we would have continued precisely as we were. There would have been no "compromise" that satisfied the losing Leavers. There was never any suggestion that these rights would have been lost had we continued our membership, with or without a referendum (well, for so long as the EU deigned to allow them). Just a point of order, a veto over Turkey's membership is not specific to the UK. The acceptance of a new member requires unanimity so all 28 members effectively have a veto on any new membership. And just another point: Ireland has an opt out from Schengen and Denmark from the euro. Are these nations "half (or perhaps three quarters) committed" to the EU project. Or are they simply being sensible and maintaining as much control over their own affairs as the EU will allow them?
