Why the hell are you posting on this thread then?@Takhisis, piece of advice: if the only answer you have to post is silly, just don't post it.
Why the hell are you posting on this thread then?@Takhisis, piece of advice: if the only answer you have to post is silly, just don't post it.
In other words, UKs negotiation tactics are those of a suicide bomber.Might be. But I'm also seeing moves in several capitals towards "softening" brexit. The portuguese government has already unilaterally commit to extend the present redidence terms for UK citizens. The possibility of the EU objecting was not even considered. The spanish government is about to do the same, and has realized that it own ail lines just happen to be owned by the british and would be grounded per EU rules if a no-deal brexit led to all existing agreements being voided. They won't allow that to happen. Macron has a political rebellion by "peripheral france" and having a stoppage with unemployment rise in the channel zone is as appealing as the plague. Etc.
Latest news is that May is now trying to renegotiate the backstop again, because the only thing she knows how to do is to grovel to her backbenchers. What a stupid, stupid woman.
So, assuming it would either be no deal or may deal, which of the two is more likely?
I am not seeing May asking for an extension. Actually, for a tory, she is pretty stuborn and if it wasnt known she is tory scum i would tend to compliment her on persisting, like inno noted.
Apparently 81% of Leave voters oppose the national interest. Well, I can't say that's much of a surprise.
So, assuming it would either be no deal or may deal, which of the two is more likely?
I am not seeing May asking for an extension. Actually, for a tory, she is pretty stuborn and if it wasnt known she is tory scum i would tend to compliment her on persisting, like inno noted.
the national interest in a democracy is by definition whatever the majority chose it to be.
In the original democracy at Athens, the majority frequently recognized that it made poor decisions and was willing to reverse them upon further discussion or argumentation. After the rebellion of Mytilene, the Athenian assembly voted to have all the male citizens of the city executed, not just the original leaders of the rebellion, and a ship was duly sent to Lesbos with the orders. The next morning, the assembly realized that such a massacre would've been over the moral event horizon even for the notoriously vicious world of fifth-century Greek politics, reversed its decision, and sent another ship across the Aegean at top speed to try to catch the previous vessel. In Thoukydides' account, the Athenians succeeded in stopping the original orders in the nick of time - although the leaders of the rebellion were still put to death. But even allowing for the historian's drama, he clearly shared the assumption that the Athenians believed that the democracy's decisions were reversible, so long as the opportunity to reverse course remained.Remain voters are sore losers who can come up with no better that a reheated project fear and allegations of "national interest". Guess what: the national interest in a democracy is by definition whatever the majority chose it to be.
In the original democracy at Athens, the majority frequently recognized that it made poor decisions and was willing to reverse them upon further discussion or argumentation. After the rebellion of Mytilene, the Athenian assembly voted to have all the male citizens of the city executed, not just the original leaders of the rebellion, and a ship was duly sent to Lesbos with the orders. The next morning, the assembly realized that such a massacre would've been over the moral event horizon even for the notoriously vicious world of fifth-century Greek politics, reversed its decision, and sent another ship across the Aegean at top speed to try to catch the previous vessel. In Thoukydides' account, the Athenians succeeded in stopping the original orders in the nick of time - although the leaders of the rebellion were still put to death. But even allowing for the historian's drama, he clearly shared the assumption that the Athenians believed that the democracy's decisions were reversible, so long as the opportunity to reverse course remained.
Why should that be any different for the modern British democracy?
edit: to be clear, I wonder if May's tactic of not saying no clearly to the EU on its unacceptable terms was a strategy to produce this "no deal" exit all along. It is something I've wondered before.
That's one of the most stupid things you've said on this forum. The majority of the UK cannot claim that sending an atomic bomb on London is in the UK's national interest. They may vote for that if they wish, but it's not the same thing.
So you don't believe in democracy. You believe that people must be managed by their betters because they cannot be trusted to decide on what is better for themselves or their community. Managed by some smaller groups who know what the "national interest" is.
The whole point of a representative democracy is that you elect people to make decisions for you and that these people are ostensibly better briefed and more able to make said decisions than you. There's no way you don't realise this.
Not at all. I've never said that the popular vote shouldn't be followed, just that it wasn't in the UK's best interest. You're really confusing popular will with national interest here. The people can be wrong (which absolutely doesn't mean that you shouldn't listen to the people, just that the debate vote for the national interest vs vote for the popular will exists)