Crosswords0 min ago
Is It Now Time To Grant The 'democratic' Demanding Remainers Their Wish?
54 Answers
Yes I think we should also now hold a second referendum, the wording on the ballot papers should read:
!/ Accept Boris Johnson's deal.
2/ Come out with no deal.
!/ Accept Boris Johnson's deal.
2/ Come out with no deal.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
// Jim 16.04 so, equally, it would be naïve to assume that a Remain vote would not be challenged on the grounds that we did not, never have, voted to join the EU, and that we would just go along with the EU's progress towards unification? //
We voted to stay in in 1975, and, presumably, had the 2016 vote gone in favour of Remain, I suppose that too would have counted as a vote to remain inside the EU, ie equivalent to voting to join. I reject the idea that it is about "going along with" the continued progress to unification, though. Earlier that year, Cameron had negotiated a few minor opt-outs of various aspects of policy, and the UK has never signed up to either the Euro or to Schengen -- nor, I suspect, would it have nodded through some other aspects of continued progress to unification.
I would certainly grant that Remain voters weren't sure of what they were voting for either, but then -- for some of them, at least -- that was more or less the point. A vote to Remain can be interpreted at least as much as a vote to return the issue to Parliament, whose role it is supposed to be, in a representative democracy, to make decisions on our behalf.
For my part, almost all I know about UK law, our constitution etc., especially as it relates to the EU, I've learned since June 2016. How many more people can say something similar? I don't think it undermines the legitimacy of the 2016 vote to suggest that anyone who has been engaged with the twists and turns since then should be more informed now than they were then.
We voted to stay in in 1975, and, presumably, had the 2016 vote gone in favour of Remain, I suppose that too would have counted as a vote to remain inside the EU, ie equivalent to voting to join. I reject the idea that it is about "going along with" the continued progress to unification, though. Earlier that year, Cameron had negotiated a few minor opt-outs of various aspects of policy, and the UK has never signed up to either the Euro or to Schengen -- nor, I suspect, would it have nodded through some other aspects of continued progress to unification.
I would certainly grant that Remain voters weren't sure of what they were voting for either, but then -- for some of them, at least -- that was more or less the point. A vote to Remain can be interpreted at least as much as a vote to return the issue to Parliament, whose role it is supposed to be, in a representative democracy, to make decisions on our behalf.
For my part, almost all I know about UK law, our constitution etc., especially as it relates to the EU, I've learned since June 2016. How many more people can say something similar? I don't think it undermines the legitimacy of the 2016 vote to suggest that anyone who has been engaged with the twists and turns since then should be more informed now than they were then.
//A vote to Remain can be interpreted at least as much as a vote to return the issue to Parliament, whose role it is supposed to be, in a representative democracy, to make decisions on our behalf.//
No it wouldn't. Mr Cameron told the electorate that the government would implement its decision (in the referendum). He didn't say "If you vote to leave or to remain then Parliament will have a think about it (although that's precisely what has happened). The issue was deemed too important for Parliament to determine. Anyway, could you imagine if a government had said "We're going to leave the EU. We won't bother with a referendum because we didn't have one to join or before we signed up to the two Treaties which saw the sacrifice of much of the nation's autonomy, so we don't need one to leave." How would that have gone down, do you think?
No it wouldn't. Mr Cameron told the electorate that the government would implement its decision (in the referendum). He didn't say "If you vote to leave or to remain then Parliament will have a think about it (although that's precisely what has happened). The issue was deemed too important for Parliament to determine. Anyway, could you imagine if a government had said "We're going to leave the EU. We won't bother with a referendum because we didn't have one to join or before we signed up to the two Treaties which saw the sacrifice of much of the nation's autonomy, so we don't need one to leave." How would that have gone down, do you think?
I think you're missing the point I was making, NJ. Obviously, the present composition of Parliament would hardly have contemplated introducing such proposals. But suppose, in a GE at some point, that Eurosceptic Parties were voted in and won a huge majority. Then, by definition (under the usual rules of elections) they would have a mandate to introduce leave-oriented policies, and they would probably also have a bit more cohesion about how to implement it, because they'd actually *want* to leave.
Most of the present crisis is at least partly because Parliament was told to do something that it thinks is detrimental to the UK. Since MPs are not our slaves, they are entitled to exercise their judgement, but are understandably wary of doing so.
Most of the present crisis is at least partly because Parliament was told to do something that it thinks is detrimental to the UK. Since MPs are not our slaves, they are entitled to exercise their judgement, but are understandably wary of doing so.
But they have been presented with a version of Brexit that is, at best, awful. Why should they just accept it just because it starts with the word "Brexit"?
This also applies to No Deal, which would be even worse for the country. It may be that no satisfactory version of Brexit exists or can be achieved, and it may be that it suits me to claim this, but each version should be evaluated on its own merits. *That* is the job of MPs, and in passing this deal it would seem to me that they are not doing it.
This also applies to No Deal, which would be even worse for the country. It may be that no satisfactory version of Brexit exists or can be achieved, and it may be that it suits me to claim this, but each version should be evaluated on its own merits. *That* is the job of MPs, and in passing this deal it would seem to me that they are not doing it.
They don't need to accept the best deal the EU will agree to; as mentioned many times, "No deal is better than a bad deal". They can discuss how bad the deal is and go for no deal if desired. Those are the two options left. Accepting one or the other is still doing their job, although in an ideal world the public would select which. However that ain't happening.
The DUP says they they can't accept any terms the EU would agree to. It leaves them with no deal and a hope that the EU insistence on a hard border causes less trouble than expected. In reality they are sticking to their main aims but failing to consider/avoid the consequences.
Farage makes good points but is content to define the draft agreement as a bad deal and get out no deal. I suppose not so different as the DUP in one way, but it's based across the whole draft agreement rather than simply EU created Irish border issues.
I have some sympathy but am more on the fence since I wish to see progress and despite not being fully au fait with the draft agreement consequences, suspect progress may be worth the agreement; but on that point I'm open to persuasion.
Farage makes good points but is content to define the draft agreement as a bad deal and get out no deal. I suppose not so different as the DUP in one way, but it's based across the whole draft agreement rather than simply EU created Irish border issues.
I have some sympathy but am more on the fence since I wish to see progress and despite not being fully au fait with the draft agreement consequences, suspect progress may be worth the agreement; but on that point I'm open to persuasion.
Latest Posts
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Wokery Comes To Tourism Agency...
News10 mins ago
Crosswords12 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.