Unless the imaginary backstop bogeyman is removed. Even JRM has said that if that goes,he'll probably support it. Which surprises me,as it doesn't extract the UK from the consequences of the absolutely appalling Lisbon treaty due to come into force in 2020.
Is the correct answer. We were given the "Backstop Bogeyman" to concentrate our tiny Leaver minds on .... then the "Backstop" gets removed ... Huzzah, everybody happy ... and five years down the road, we have a referendum to rejoin the EU "cos being half-in, half-out is awful, simply awful" - and all because we forgot that the WA is end-to-end, up-and-down horrible and not what we voted on. So fucking tedious, being able to see the future but being unable to do anything about it. A proper Cassandra, so I am.
........s place in europ was published and handed over to May, apperently it wasnt workable. untill it turned into the irish backstop.... it would of been far easyier to impliment, much smaller boarder with only several crossings. and no threat of terrorisem.
Several things wrong here. Generically, what is the legitimacy of a second referendum when the first one has been ignored, and on what basis would a call for third, fourth, fifth, etc referendum be approved or rejected? Specifically, in the case of the Brexit referendum - if the legitimacy of a second Brexit referendum could be established (not possible in my opinion) - what will the result of the referendum achieve that the first one did not? Leavers, if they lose, will argue that the second referendum was illegitimate, that the result was artificially engineered by a Remain-committed government in defiance of the stated will of the people (the first Brexit referendum) and is therefore utterly unacceptable. Remainers, if they lose, will not accept the result because ... I don't know. Habit, maybe? They have form in this, I think you'll agree. If a second Brexit referendum had any chance whatsoever of achieving the goal of "settling the issue", perhaps it could be viewed as a necessary evil, desirable despite its inherently undemocratic principle. The fact is though - it wouldn't settle anything. It would create mayhem for no purpose whatsoever. What would the second referendum ask? Unless it is "Leave or Remain", as before, it would be a deeply dishonest, divisive and anti-democratic step on the road to anarchy.
I think that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hold a second referendum, should they be worded sufficiently. The Government is supposed to work for the good of the country; that is an immutable fact. Knowing what we know now, nearly three years down the line and with the supposed "deal" that we have now, is taking the UK out of the EU still true to the above statement? If you believe that it is, then there's no problem with going ahead with Article 50 and the deal on offer. If you don't believe that it is the case, then that is a legitimate reason to have another referendum asking for the public's opinion on whether they still agree. Democracy is about being able to change your mind, and you are able to change your mind based upon new evidence being available. Whatever side you're on, you cannot argue that the picture now is very different to pre-referendum, so maybe we need a second referendum? But anyway, my point was that in "five years down the road" (to quote you!) things may be so bad that the only way the country will survive is to rejoin the EU. Would you seriously rule out another referendum just because the last one was 5 years ago? How long do we wait for the next one to be valid? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? But then I would say that as I think Brexit is a massive mistake and being done for all the wrong reasons with all the wrong consequences.
Indeed. In the course of working for the good of the country, Parliament reached such an impasse in their deliberations that they were unable to settle the matter. They threw the question open to the Public. The Public spoke, on the basis that their decision would be acted upon - as promised by the Government and by Parliament. Furthermore, the Government and the Opposition took their seats after the 2017 General Election, the vast majority of whom on the manifesto promise to deliver Brexit. "Knowing what we know now"? Seriously? We don't know anything now that we did not already know prior to the referendum, or at the very least, anything we could not predict. Brexit is in one sense a leap into the unknown. We knew this when when voted for it. "The deal on offer" - by that, I assume you mean, the WA as being sold to us by the MayBot? The WA does not deliver Brexit. It guarantees Brexit won't happen. I won't quibble with you on how much control the EU can exercise over the running of our country and we still call it "Brexit". If the EU controls anything that properly falls under the category of UK Sovereignty, it ain't Brexit. Huh? Have you not read what I've typed? The people spoke. The Government said they'd honour the decision. All this second-guessing, which is not based upon hard evidence but instead on Project Fear, speculation and biased, self-serving "reasoning" ... none of these are grounds for revisiting the decision. Nothing has materially changed since June 2016. Except for the degree of hysteria and hostility I see from the Remain side. That has multiplied exponentially. There is no evidence whatsoever that Brexit can only be a disaster for the UK. There's not any real evidence that it even might be. There is only doom-saying, guesswork and above all, sophistry. I can foresee scenarios where another Referendum might be required. I can foresee scenarios when we would need to walk back our decision ten years, five years, one year, two days after we leave. The balance of probability though is that we won't ever need to re-think it. On a timescale where the situation in the UK demands a return to the EU, the EU will no longer resemble the organisation we left - truly, on that timescale, I do not believe the EU will still exist. Well, I didn't want to say it but as you've brought it up - all your arguments and ideas seem to be based upon the acceptance that leaving the EU is "a bad idea". Once you accept that premise, many of your points make a certain amount of sense. The problem is, most leavers have considered your central premise and believe it to be wrong. Once that happened, your arguments became less convincing. I see this a lot when discussing politics and especially, the abortion issue. People argue from a standpoint that their central premise cannot be challenged - on the basis that it is axiomatically correct - and then look aghast at you when you say, "... but that is simply untrue ...".
yip, the SNP worked hard at securing the removal of registration fees. i will take that as a victory for commonsense
