Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Mar 22, 2019.
This is already page 49 of the 6th installment. Bit late to be complaining now.
I am not quite sure why you are typing this.
There is more than one camp, and the Theresa May government is a camp, not a neutral arbiter.
You do know all that.
Yes, we noticed.
I disagree, it has become clear that Theresa May's plan was for Brexit In Name Only.
Only until Leave win the next referendum 56% to 44%.
Which other EU provinces have had a referendum about secession (oh , yes, Catalonia).
And what happened there, the secesionists won the vote, but were promptly arrested.
She will try to veto anything that Donald Trump tries to do, the Irish border is merely a convenient pretext.
I have no confidence in Lam Fox negotiating with the USA, happy to see a UK-USA FTA kicked into the long grass.
He is a smart lad, is our Jeremy Corbyn, floating serenely above the fractious cloud of contradictions of his own party.
It is interesting that he regards Nigel Farage, not the Tories, as the real opposition to Labour at the European elections.
Well if so, he should have worked out that the formal document he is seeking, did not exist.
Well, any sensible future referendum will not be a vague "you can have any Brexit you want" option, so what makes you think that?
You really really don't trust the professional workers in the government ministries, the state comptroller, chancellery, etc., do you? I mean the elected political government is something on top, but the specialists below should still be able to provide facts. That's the point of a neutral brochure (with of course pages devoted to the viewpoints of the political sides written by theses themselves). If you have so few trust in the government to list basic facts, how can you trust them when they, say, write a law on the technical details of veterinary medicine. Sure the political caste can afterward haggle on what provision helps which industry most, but someone has to write the basic text first. And I want those people to be paid by taxpayer money, not lobbyism.
And if there was no formal document, what were you even voting about? That's something we have learned a long time ago here in Switzerland. If you go to the trouble of asking the people, there needs to be as few of differences in understanding as possible. So: a clear legal text.
We were voting in an advisory referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU. It's only after Leave won that it suddenly became a mandate for whatever the PM could push through Parliament (or the hardest of Brexits, if the ERG got their way). As one comedian (I think it was) noted, it's like having a vote on whether to change the TV channel or carrying on watching what you already are, but then the people who won the vote to change the channel suddenly decided to watch something specific on a set channel, without any discussion on what that was going to be.
Yeah, and that's just bonkers. Because if you do a population poll with the whole population, you might want to ask more question than a single yes or no... (And yes, that's not a referendum, what you describe is an opinion poll, a populist one).
Well, yes, as I've pointed out many times all referendums are explicitly or implicitly advisory under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament cannot be bound even by Parliaments past, present or future, so all the iterations of ‘the will of the people’ are just populistic ramblings until the UK gets a constitution and finally enters the 19th century.
"Constitution" is eerily similar to "continent(al)". Incompatible with proper Britishness, I guess.
I think that May should go.
Can parliament vote to change stuff like the duration for an effective 1922 vote?
I am not sure for how much longer the situation in british parliament can be presented as just funny - despite the english knack for viewing things comedicaly and being content with silent desperation.
I do think that if this goes on for much longer you may well have more violent reactions.
Its an internal Tory party matter and last time they changed the rules it took about a year to do so. By then she'll be gone anyway. The only quick way to get rid of her would be a No Confidence vote and no Tories would support that as they'd have to fight a general election with her as leader.
I have no objection to a neutral brochure containing "facts" being produced before a refererendum.
The UK pf GB & NI had been a member of the European Union for over ffteen years, of the EEC/EC/EU
in all etc for 43 years. It was very clear to us what the 2016 Referendum was about.
Well Yes, if the country is holding referendums all the time on things about which most people do not know the underlying facts
and they have limited time to research the facts, then sure; providing a neutral briefing document would be very appropriate.
Fact is that the UK Referendum was organised by a pro Remain government, with pro Remain parties and a pro Remain
majority of MP in the 2015-2017 Parliament. The remainers in power chose not to allow state production of a neutral
document, and then, having much to their surprise, lost the vote, .they allege the public voted in ignorance.
One or two bodies,. BBC, chambers of commerce, tried to produce neutral documents, but were leant on not to.
"Us" You're talking about you and your select friends, I take it? You couldn't possibly be referring to all Leavers en masse, given how much you object to other people doing that.
Remainers want another vote, they'll have another vote soon enough, if the UK takes part in the European elections. And the result should put a stake through any delusions of remaining.
Congratulations, the campaign to overturn the referendum results will likely achieve making Farange the leader of the most voted party...
May is finished, the inevitability of an election before her next attempt at delaying, andthe results that are to be expected, will force the conservatives to kick her out or disappear. She'll be kicked. She played a good game at clinging to power so far, but an election before brexit is done collapses her strategy.
Are you suggesting May ever had a strategy, or would even know what a strategy was if it reached up and bit her in the arse?
Bit early to come to that conclusion, no?
I think that she likely only wanted to stick to her original deal, and run barefoot through fields of what it was.
She should have just quit, though, or at least switch to no deal brexit assuming parliament has the numbers for it (i assume it would if enough maytories vote for it).
Maybe she just likes being pm Wouldn't be the first time a politician just wants to stay in power.
What i don't get is why she declared a general election. True, at the time expectation was that the tories would take almost all of the ukip vote, but at least May herself would have known that she isn't good at public speaking/running for pm in general elections. If she had kept Cam's majority she could have just passed her deal by now, no?
No. It just makes sense. Many people will be pissed off with the attempts to overturn brexit. And they'll both remember project fear and notice that all predictions of doom have failed entirely to materialize. The outcome will be the european parliament elections being used as a protest vote.
Fair enough, I was responding as though you were concluding that off of nothing more than that polling data.
I'm not at all sure you're right: I think that the victory of Brexit in the referendum will likely drive Remainers to the polls as well, perhaps in equally high numbers. But we'll see.
Separate names with a comma.