What makes you think the two are the same groups? If I may on your first part? There is a certain irony in Leavers thinking that the people should only get one bite at the cherry to decide in or out of the EU, Let's say we have another peoples vote (despite having already have it), there will be two possiblities (1) the remain side win. They will insist it is democracy in action but recent comments suggest they would only want a vote if remain (already beaten) was on the ballot paper and leave with no deal(surely a democratic choice) was removed from the paper. They will try and say this is the definitive and lock it down so no further vote can happen despite the brexiteers having just cause to ask for best of 3 under the "democracy not stops claim" of the remainers (2) Brexiteers win vote 2, honestly of all those remainers who have said "if the brexiteers win again then we would respect the vote" who on their right mind would believe that as in practice in the real world, they have yet to respect anything they have said they would respect?
That's not possible jezz, I did put the question to you last time but you haven't answered Perhaps you could update me, Wasn't this done before (January) as an amendment, and it meant whilst the house says fuck the public, the government was under no legal obligation to carry that out? isn't todays vote the same thing again?
If the No Deal Option is voted out today/ tonight, the UK will not leave- unless there is another vote to revoke this- without a deal. May made all that plain, as did Loathsome yesterday. Didn't you watch any of it live?
If some salesman sells you life insurance, you sign up for it. You then have 7 days or whatever it is to reconsider. You show your policy to some well-informed friends, have a good think about whether you can afford it and maybe do some research. You decide you don't like the look of it and rip up the agreement. The law lets you do this, because it is aware that it's a better way of entering into agreements. Don't be hasty. 3 years down the track do people know more about what they voted for? Quite likely yes, unless they have deliberately avoided the subject. Should they be allowed to reconsider if they want to? Certainly. Why is this undemocratic? Isn't democracy the will of the people? Why not check that leaving still is the will of the people? What people should have learnt in the interim: The 40-odd trade agreements are not in place, nor anywhere near being in place. The EU is not going to roll over and give us all the cherries in the cake The UK can't seem to negotiate a deal it likes Leaving without a deal is going to create unimaginable turmoil and only the most rabid and ill-informed Brexiteers want this course of action The NHS won't be getting any extra money The Irish border issue is a real problem and it doesn't look easy to solve or it already would have been. No one can say, concretely that everyone will be richer after Brexit - it looks as if they will be poorer for years to come. With regards to the above, Q1: Do you still want to leave? If yes, Q2: Do you want May's deal, or no deal? Fine. Sorted. No more quagmire. We'll all live with the consequences. (Well, you will). So why do Leave hate this idea? Because they already have what they want (or think they are going to get it). They aren't interested in "the will of the people", they aren't interested in democracy, they aren't interested in a country at ease with its decisions; they are interested in winning. In the event of a second ref, the country might have changed its mind and then, boo-hoo, they will have lost. And if Remain loses again? I think for everyone that will be the end of the matter. Checking people's intentions, a second opinion, seems fair enough. You can't keep going on. If I'd had my way I'd have had ratification by the people as an integral part of the Brexit process. It seems pretty obvious to me - nothing anti-democratic about that.
I hadn't heard that. A quick search brought up this. The government has put forward a motion, similar to the Spelman-Dromey amendment, the only difference between the two being the wording as the government's motion says "this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement" whereas the amendment changes the word "declines" to "rejects." EDIT: From BBC Dame Caroline Spelman, who is the main sponsor for amendment (a) which was selected by the Speaker earlier. She says the government's motion - which also states opposition to no deal - affords a greater opportunity to get a large majority of MPs behind it. She says she would therefore like to withdraw her amendment.
Doesn't it? Mogg was saying (over and over again) that we'd be getting all our beef from Australia post Brexit. Makes perfect sense. About as much sense as New Zealand lamb, which I have never understood. Farmers in the UK are drowning in lambs - it's barely economic to kill them. So let's get some more from the other side of the world.
An interesting afternoon watching live debate in parliament; Looks like no deal will get voted out. Extension to Brexit and or rescind article 50 looks seriously likely.
She read out a letter in the house from a constituent, it went along the lines of the house has forgotten what it is there for and there is now a huge disconnect between mp's and the people of the country. The contistuent said they have voted all their life but from this date will never vote again after the house is telling the largest democratic majority of over 17 million people, that they don't matter nor does democratic votes. After she read the full letter, she mentioned the government version and said from that she will be withdrawing her amendment. This would give the impression as the first one in January, where the house can say no but the government is under no legal obligation to abide by it
Sorry to pick a bit at a time. That seems to be the case for both sides ? Same for ‘experts’ really, which ones should you believe ? My own personal experience of finiancial experts is they advise whatever gives them the most commission.
Actually this has been mentioned before in this thread. We import nearly as much lamb as we actually export. If people were that worried about the planet then they should only be allowed to import what they do not make themselves
So are you saying that a government motion which says ""this House rejects to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement" -May confirmed at PMQs she will vote to block a no-deal Brexit herself- will be ignored?
Let me test my understanding. If 51% answer Q1 to leave and then 51% of them answer Q2 with no deal, then the remainers will say that 75% (ish) of the country voted against no deal. If that doesn't make them believe they have the devine right to stop Brexit nothing will. TB
I get the impression that nobody has noticed how the narrative of Leave has changed: Pre-vote narrative: it’s going to be amazing! We’ll have all this extra money, trade deals coming out of our ears, endless opportunities, a future so bright you’ll need a welder’s mask to look at it! Post-vote narrative: it won’t be as shit as all that. Chin-up guys and hop off this cliff with me! Think of all the fish!
Yes, Glid really is out of touch with reality - and I know some of the so called experts and business leaders in the real world and know why they are anti Brexit, it's not for the good of the general public and the countries future that's for sure
Are you sure you got that right, the Americans are upset because something is being shot? Or is it just that they are worried that every seal a Scot shoots is one less for them to shoot?
