Off Topic UK / EU Future

Completely missing the point.
Please read 'On Fantasy Island' by conor gearty, and then return to your sovereignty arguments with a better understanding of what it means.

 

MPs settle lots of issues not knowing whether it will require further attention later.
You fail to understand that this would not be re-running any referendum but a completely new one. Preferably this time with 3 options. You hide behind a one time vote binds for all time argument. That has never been the case in any country in the world.
Previously we voted on in or out - now it would be what type of out - if you even still want out.

 

The 2016 referendum must mean the UK leaves the EU. It was clearly spelt out at the time the consequence of people's vote. If the UK does not honour its own democratic process it will create apathy never seen before.

The PM has correctly reaffirmed today there will not be another referendum on this subject.

 

The PM may not be the PM for much longer - her authority is limited.
The 1975 referendum said we would be in the EU (or EEC as it was then) so in your eyes the 2016 referendum should not have been held. We have had 2 on Europe. It can be 3 if parliament decrees.

 

This is completely illogical, must try harder.

 

If you want to apply your dodgy logic you can have the next one in 40 + years.

 

Interesting when the logic you create for your own argument is played back... you call it dodgy logic.....

Given that the logic you choose to apply is clearly iterative..I dont see how you can claim that Leo's is fallacious

 

Was it clearly spelt out ? The Bill did not contain any requirement for the UK. Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which the vote should be implemented. It was a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultive. The UK. does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented. All of this was known before the referendum. If the government had just said 'Thank you very much for your opinion but it's too impractical' or, that a second opinion was necessary for a decision of this magnitude, or even that the winning margin was to marginal for a decision of this importance, it would all have been perfectly consistent with our democratic traditions. But few of our politicians had the bottle to stand up and say this at the time.

 

Reflects the very divisive nature of British society currently... .also happening in the US. .very worrying for the future....

 

I think that is just about right cologne, but you are missing out the fact that Cameron resigned. May was elected leader almost by default after the back stabbing of her rivals to be leader. She clearly had little idea what she was saying with some of her silly soundbites. She created a cabinet that was balanced so that she could always call on half of them to support her, but at the same time they could not agree on anything. For two years she put off taking decisions that were desperately needed simply to maintain her hold on the job. As soon as she did finally put forward a plan the cabinet and party shattered even more than it had already into open warfare. No one which ever side of the argument you sit believe that this is remotely workable, but it has seen her through to the summer holiday, so maybe she has succeeded to that extent.

 

Yes it was clearly and repeatedly spelt out by the Prime Minister that a 'leave' vote meant the UK leaving the EU. This is why the overwhelming number of MPs voted to start the process through article 50 and has supported every stage since.

 

Obviously looking back the Tory party should have voted to give a Brexiteer the top job, that way the people's wishes would have been better reflected. It also needed somebody with more backbone to expose the blocking tactics by the EU on a sensible compromise. Clearly the best thing to do now is to accept the two sides are so far apart giving more certainty to the 'no deal' planning.

 

British politics has been divisive since my first interest in politics in the 60's, probably for hundreds of years. It is the very nature of politics.

 

I see that the PM is flying down to the south of France to meet President Macron later this week. Maybe he will be able to talk a little sense into her.

 

I hope he doesn't put his cowboy dressing up clothes on again!!

Maybe they can ask each other why they are so unpopular.

 

But in many countries a more inclusive kind of Govt is formed. mainly socialist........

 

Some of you guys used to quote Venezuela as a good example, a bit quiet recently?

 

well.... i was going to put communist too... but i thought no need to rile you

 

We did have a poster who had family in Venezuela, and he had nothing good to say about the place. He was sending money to help support the family. I don't think your memory is quite in tune with what was said about the country.

 

There are plenty of communists countries without divisive politics, any potential objectors know they will disappear if they dare speak up.