They always were.
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Even more so now ......
Sharpattack
Player Valuation: £35m
The irony is that Brexit has been killed by it's greatest cheerleaders who wanted a 100% pure, no deal Brexit. If they had accepted May's deal, no matter how flawed, they would have been out last Friday. They seemed to lose sight of the fact that May's Deal was a Withdrawal Agreement not the final deal. But then again, looking at the calibre of some of the ERG types they are intellectual pygmies, or in Mark Francois's case, an actual pygmy. Even Rees-Mogg and Johnson realised that but too late.
Most definitely
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
I never said that. You asked me what I thought of that article and whether the remain side would have fought for a second referendum and I agreed with you.
I have said in here numerous times that I don't like referendums because they fly in the face of the way our democratic society in the country works, ie parliament. I also have said that the way the government set up this referendum was bordering on gross misconduct. If they were to put such an important decision into the hands of the population, it was their responsibility to provide the electorate with enough information to make an informed decision. This should have been in the form of a small booklet, delivered to every household, outlining the pros and cons of both staying in the EU and leaving the EU. This needed to be totally impartial and the Govt itself should also have stayed totally impartial in the whole process. Instead they chose sides and in doing so lost control of the process.
So, having said that a referendum was the wrong way to decide on this, it follows that I also believe a second referendum is the wrong way to resolve it. There are a number of reasons why, and it has nothing to do with the fear of losing.
Firstly, where does it stop?. By having a second referendum you set a precedent that allows the opposition to come back with a third, fourth, maybe even a fifth. In the meantime business's continue to suffer due to the uncertainty. Secondly, what questions do you ask?. Everything I've seen from the remain side is calling for a straight choice between remain and whatever leave deal is flavour of the day. Depending on the deal, up to 90% or more of the leave vote could be disengaged from referendum vote. In what world is that democratic?. In remain world because it guarantees the result you want.
. The only real democratic question would be another straight leave/remain vote, and this is the only one that I would actually take part in. But this has it's own cons which have been oft discussed in here. Thirdly, and probably the most important, is that in the long term it would resolve nothing other than satisfy those that don't want to leave the EU. It would only make the country more divided.
The deal is not liked by Remainers or Brexitiers it is also not a deal it's a binding EU treaty, that may hold us in the EU on their terms for eternity - it's worse than being a member of the EU ....
I for one would be sad if it ever gets passed...... May completely bundled it and should have resigned......
Emlynsqueakyvoice
Player Valuation: £6m
I fully agree with you about referenda, but I doubt that even sending a booklet setting out the pros and cons of EU membership would have made things much better. My reason for asking the question initially is that Mr Farage seemed to be hedging his bets, which flies directly in the face of the 'you lost get over it, 17.4 million votes, leave means leave' guff that many of the leave supporters trumpet, including the odd one on here. I wanted to know what Leave supporters thought of the Farage statement now, given that Leave won, and why some of the most vehement Leavers have never mentioned Mr Farage's statement. You have given a good answer in fairness.I never said that. You asked me what I thought of that article and whether the remain side would have fought for a second referendum and I agreed with you.
I have said in here numerous times that I don't like referendums because they fly in the face of the way our democratic society in the country works, ie parliament. I also have said that the way the government set up this referendum was bordering on gross misconduct. If they were to put such an important decision into the hands of the population, it was their responsibility to provide the electorate with enough information to make an informed decision. This should have been in the form of a small booklet, delivered to every household, outlining the pros and cons of both staying in the EU and leaving the EU. This needed to be totally impartial and the Govt itself should also have stayed totally impartial in the whole process. Instead they chose sides and in doing so lost control of the process.
So, having said that a referendum was the wrong way to decide on this, it follows that I also believe a second referendum is the wrong way to resolve it. There are a number of reasons why, and it has nothing to do with the fear of losing.
Firstly, where does it stop?. By having a second referendum you set a precedent that allows the opposition to come back with a third, fourth, maybe even a fifth. In the meantime business's continue to suffer due to the uncertainty. Secondly, what questions do you ask?. Everything I've seen from the remain side is calling for a straight choice between remain and whatever leave deal is flavour of the day. Depending on the deal, up to 90% or more of the leave vote could be disengaged from referendum vote. In what world is that democratic?. In remain world because it guarantees the result you want.
Completely agree, their brinkmanship and overstatement of their own influence has come undone.
But, in my opinion, you can't really separate the WA from the Political Declaration.The preamble to the EU Decision to extend A.50 mentions the WA and the PD in the same terms paragraphs (5) and (6). Additionally Art. 184 of the WA makes express reference to the Political Declaration "of 25 November 2018", and no other PD. Art. 184 also talks about expeditious negotiations of future arrangements, which reflect the PD.
Loading…
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
The EU could feasibly offer no extension, but the fact that you cannot separate the two is the reason for the lengthy extension, which we have to request the EU for. This will of course be used by the ERG as 'abandoning Brexit' but the only way we get Brexit without No Deal (which everyone but disaster capitalists and the blinkered think is a good idea) is through the WA and renegotiation of the Political Declaration.
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
Stop talking through your arse
Surely that just leaves us in the current position, because presumably if Leave won again, you still have the problem of 'how' we leave and what future relationship we want to have.I never said that. You asked me what I thought of that article and whether the remain side would have fought for a second referendum and I agreed with you.
I have said in here numerous times that I don't like referendums because they fly in the face of the way our democratic society in the country works, ie parliament. I also have said that the way the government set up this referendum was bordering on gross misconduct. If they were to put such an important decision into the hands of the population, it was their responsibility to provide the electorate with enough information to make an informed decision. This should have been in the form of a small booklet, delivered to every household, outlining the pros and cons of both staying in the EU and leaving the EU. This needed to be totally impartial and the Govt itself should also have stayed totally impartial in the whole process. Instead they chose sides and in doing so lost control of the process.
So, having said that a referendum was the wrong way to decide on this, it follows that I also believe a second referendum is the wrong way to resolve it. There are a number of reasons why, and it has nothing to do with the fear of losing.
Firstly, where does it stop?. By having a second referendum you set a precedent that allows the opposition to come back with a third, fourth, maybe even a fifth. In the meantime business's continue to suffer due to the uncertainty. Secondly, what questions do you ask?. Everything I've seen from the remain side is calling for a straight choice between remain and whatever leave deal is flavour of the day. Depending on the deal, up to 90% or more of the leave vote could be disengaged from referendum vote. In what world is that democratic?. In remain world because it guarantees the result you want.
Politics live today just watched it - Andrew Neil absolutely made a complete fool out of Ken Clarke over his customs union- Why because in the PMs leave deal there is a stronger binding custom trade deal in it to solve the Irish border - Ken type of customs union would not - Dear old Ken was also taliking if being in a customs union would be like still being a member of the EU .....three times Andrew O'Neil had to tell him this would not be the case - Ken Clarke was the Tory who nearly pushed us into the Euro..........
His idea of a custom union on leaving the EU it would be the same on a nod wink basis totally laughable we have MPs still like this - I remember him in Thatchers government he and Norman Fowler were real nasty foot soldiers for her style of politics......
His idea of a custom union on leaving the EU it would be the same on a nod wink basis totally laughable we have MPs still like this - I remember him in Thatchers government he and Norman Fowler were real nasty foot soldiers for her style of politics......
Thersea May's deal can't get through the Commons. So dear old Ken has to propose something different.
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
As we're approaching the end game I think it's fair to say that the plan amongst the remain dominant parliament was to not leave the EU at all. I wouldn't mind so much if they were all as honest as the LibDems and SNP were from the outset. But they've all been playing a game to try and delude the electorate that they were actually upholding the referendum results.
If Labour insist on a confirmatory vote (and with it an almost certain remain win), which at this stage seems likely, then we won't find agreement on a deal before next weeks deadline. So parliament (who exactly I'm not sure) will approach the EU for an extended deadline. There are many Europeans who do not want the UK to take part in the EU elections and it only takes 1 of the 27 to veto the extension. We will then default to a no deal Brexit, despite all the efforts of Cooper & Co last night.
That would be irony.
Loving the vocal 'its democracy, will of the people' types begging the unelected House of Lord's to block the intentions of the democratically elected House of Commons.
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
A point which I conceded in my post. But surely you don't believe a referendum which alienates the wishes of maybe 15m people can in any way be considered democratic.?
It's why I don't think a referendum is the answer. If a compromise deal can't be agreed then we have to have an election.
- Status