Crosswords1 min ago
If There Were A General Election On Oct 14 ?
and a party stood as a remain party and won convincingly with the leave voters spreading their votes across other parties . Would we automatically remain within the EU ? or would there be another referendum with alternative options ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by johnny.5. 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.
I was meaning the mode of implementation, not the act itself. What things to sort out with the EU beforehand, what to leave until later, how to ensure the Irish border remains legally open, status of EU and UK citizens, security arrangements, etc etc. The detail, in other words. Even now anyone in a position of responsibility is proposing to address these issues, as far as is possible, rather than ignore them.
I can accept the point, made earlier in this thread or perhaps in another one, that the complexity of Brexit shouldn't in itself be an excuse to avoid it -- but you should still take the complexity seriously and try to resolve it. No Deal is just a different kind of avoidance, and one that is altogether more damaging.
I can accept the point, made earlier in this thread or perhaps in another one, that the complexity of Brexit shouldn't in itself be an excuse to avoid it -- but you should still take the complexity seriously and try to resolve it. No Deal is just a different kind of avoidance, and one that is altogether more damaging.
Whether a no deal is "more damaging " or not, remains to be seen and is pure conjecture and opinion. What we "do" know, is that the country as a whole, voted to leave. Enough for any Democrat. How it is achieved, is up to the MPs and if they are incapable, it will just be a "leave" with deals sorted afterwards.
What other choice is there, anyway?
What other choice is there, anyway?
// What other choice is there, anyway? //
Well, now we are going back to the hypothetical question posed on the OP. Supposing a Remain Party, or a Remain Alliance wins, then they can claim a mandate for a different approach, be it by withdrawing Notification or, more likely, by attempting to find a different deal and presenting that vs. Remain in a new referendum.
Well, now we are going back to the hypothetical question posed on the OP. Supposing a Remain Party, or a Remain Alliance wins, then they can claim a mandate for a different approach, be it by withdrawing Notification or, more likely, by attempting to find a different deal and presenting that vs. Remain in a new referendum.
The EU, by treating vital red lines with disdain despite being offered solutions there was no justification for rejecting, has shown it's not interested in sorting anything out. Which is why we are left with no-deal; or ignoring the public because parliament thinks we aren't important, only they and their opinions are.
"they can claim a mandate for a different approach"
Only in as much as they can try to get us out instead. There is no mandate ever to ignore the referendum. And since they won't get the EU to shift regardless the approach, and the EU's position is unacceptable, the only mandate they have left is no-deal, which they may as well have let Boris do for them.
Only in as much as they can try to get us out instead. There is no mandate ever to ignore the referendum. And since they won't get the EU to shift regardless the approach, and the EU's position is unacceptable, the only mandate they have left is no-deal, which they may as well have let Boris do for them.
// There is no mandate ever to ignore the referendum. //
At the future election, a Party campaigns on more or less one issue only: revoking Article 50 notification and remaining in the EU. That Party wins. Moreover, that party even wins with the largest ever share of popular vote in history. Let's even suppose that it wins so big it even outweighs the famous 17.4 million figure from 2016 (presumably, requiring a larger turnout).
Wouldn't that be enough? And if not, what *would* be? Suppose by some miracle everybody who voted leave -- except, perhaps, AB leavers and Nigel Farage -- changed their mind and voted for the Remain Party. Would *that* be enough?
The UK cannot be held hostage by a past version of itself. I accept that the mandate of a hypothetical successful Remain party in the coming election is likely to be not nearly large enough to override 2016 beyond even your objections, but it will be enough at least to give them the right and the mandate to set their own, Remain/ Remain-v.-soft-Brexit in-a-second-referendum agenda.
Or, if not, then it brings me back to the question in the other thread: this is becoming less and less about Brexit and more and more about who you want your MPs to be, and what their job is.
At the future election, a Party campaigns on more or less one issue only: revoking Article 50 notification and remaining in the EU. That Party wins. Moreover, that party even wins with the largest ever share of popular vote in history. Let's even suppose that it wins so big it even outweighs the famous 17.4 million figure from 2016 (presumably, requiring a larger turnout).
Wouldn't that be enough? And if not, what *would* be? Suppose by some miracle everybody who voted leave -- except, perhaps, AB leavers and Nigel Farage -- changed their mind and voted for the Remain Party. Would *that* be enough?
The UK cannot be held hostage by a past version of itself. I accept that the mandate of a hypothetical successful Remain party in the coming election is likely to be not nearly large enough to override 2016 beyond even your objections, but it will be enough at least to give them the right and the mandate to set their own, Remain/ Remain-v.-soft-Brexit in-a-second-referendum agenda.
Or, if not, then it brings me back to the question in the other thread: this is becoming less and less about Brexit and more and more about who you want your MPs to be, and what their job is.
No, that wouldn't be enough, Jim. It would still mean that nobody would ever bother to vote, as they know they wouldn't be listened to. Brexit needs to be achieved first and foremost or it will do untold damage to the confidence in the country.
I also think these threads are little to do with Brexit itself, but about honesty and fairness etc. That will always matter in this country.
I also think these threads are little to do with Brexit itself, but about honesty and fairness etc. That will always matter in this country.
Fantasy scenarios aside, something demanded needs to be delivered before an opinion on it can be made. Fear stories trying to ensure a staus quo is never improved, and we all stagnate, is no basis for denying the demand since from there on in one knows parliament are not the people's reprentatives, but simply their controllers, and thus unsupportable by any citizens who values the freedom to be part of the decision making process. Parliament will be seen as spinning a lie and willing to betray the public even to the extent of frightening them into turning away from doing the right thing.
// It would still mean that nobody would ever bother to vote, as they know they wouldn't be listened to. //
In the scenario I envisaged, essentially the entire country has changed their minds. So, exactly how are they "not being listened to"? If anything, in that scenario, going ahead with Brexit would be the act of not listening, because you are refusing to listen to what the country says *now*.
As far as I can see that's where the fundamental disagreement comes. Although I'm sure that most people haven't changed their mind since 2016, democracy is still about what the country wants *now*, not what it wanted three, or ten, or thirty, or a hundred years ago. If the Country still thinks in the same way *now* as it did in 2016, then so be it, but if it does not then *now* becomes the primary concern.
* * * *
Naomi, I know that we disagree, and I know that you've lost all respect for me, but all the same -- wouldn't it at least be worth trying to put your view across independent of what you think about me? I assume that more people read this than just you, me, and pixie. Maybe they're interested in what you think about Brexit more than they are what you think about me.
In the scenario I envisaged, essentially the entire country has changed their minds. So, exactly how are they "not being listened to"? If anything, in that scenario, going ahead with Brexit would be the act of not listening, because you are refusing to listen to what the country says *now*.
As far as I can see that's where the fundamental disagreement comes. Although I'm sure that most people haven't changed their mind since 2016, democracy is still about what the country wants *now*, not what it wanted three, or ten, or thirty, or a hundred years ago. If the Country still thinks in the same way *now* as it did in 2016, then so be it, but if it does not then *now* becomes the primary concern.
* * * *
Naomi, I know that we disagree, and I know that you've lost all respect for me, but all the same -- wouldn't it at least be worth trying to put your view across independent of what you think about me? I assume that more people read this than just you, me, and pixie. Maybe they're interested in what you think about Brexit more than they are what you think about me.
If it's always about "now" with no hysteresis then nothing ever gets settled or done. It's about practicality. Once decided one must follow through, barring a darned good reason, and, "Oh I didn't get my way so I'm going to make as much fuss as possible, try to persuade those vulnerable to being manipulated with stories of how awful it'll all be, then claim I think we've changed our mind now", is not a darned good reason.
Except there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Brexit, and especially a No-Deal, will be harmful, most of all to the UK. It doesn't do to just dismiss that as scare-mongering, when a great deal of that evidence is provided by people who aren't involved in the decision-making process at all.
You've lost your empathy if the only reason you can see for resisting a particular version of Brexit is a hissy fit against losing.
You've lost your empathy if the only reason you can see for resisting a particular version of Brexit is a hissy fit against losing.
Ok I have to accept this tablet/browser threw the whole post away by pretending suddenly this site wasn't safe ! I'll try to recap what I can recall.
Any "harm" is simply short to medium term adjustment to the new status quo. Well worth the cost to regain our nation's freedom.
Once free to trade worldwide, on our our agreed terms, folk will wonder where and when this "harm" was supposed to happen, much like folk wonder about the claims made so far that never occurred.
There are no versions of Brexit. It's just exiting the EU. All else is simply trade and project cooperation and can be done any time the EU decides that they're finally ready to be reasonable.
Any "harm" is simply short to medium term adjustment to the new status quo. Well worth the cost to regain our nation's freedom.
Once free to trade worldwide, on our our agreed terms, folk will wonder where and when this "harm" was supposed to happen, much like folk wonder about the claims made so far that never occurred.
There are no versions of Brexit. It's just exiting the EU. All else is simply trade and project cooperation and can be done any time the EU decides that they're finally ready to be reasonable.
"
Ich //The question was what would happen if aquote[ remain leaning] party prevailed in an election before Oct 31.//
Not quite what the OP asked:-
//and a partyquote[ stood] as a remain party// "
"... and won convincingly" it goes on to say.
So now we know: the talks in Brussels are a sham
In the words of Cummings himself ...
Ich //The question was what would happen if aquote[ remain leaning] party prevailed in an election before Oct 31.//
Not quite what the OP asked:-
//and a partyquote[ stood] as a remain party// "
"... and won convincingly" it goes on to say.
So now we know: the talks in Brussels are a sham
In the words of Cummings himself ...
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
Tree Slayers Case Moved To The Crown...
News9 mins ago
Technology11 mins ago
News31 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.