Also makes it clear that her Deal will never pass no matter how much time they wait. At least 117 tories, the DUP, SNP, lib dems (who want to remain) and the majority of Labour will all vote it down, Weakens her even further at which point Labour demand a GE. Fact is MPs no longer understand what the people want. Brexit was sold with so much vagueness, half promises and blatant lies that opinions have changed. If the public had known the full extent of what would happen I'm sure the outcome would have been much different. The only option, the one May refuses to see as she fears losing yet more support in her party, is a 2nd referendum where all three options are given.
Yes, one side has whinged and stereotyped that the other side was full of uninformed, stupid old people who want to go back to 1945 and they should all have their right to vote taken away, because they'll be dead soon. Sure, taking people's right to vote away is fascist and typically undemocratic of Remain but they deserve it for being a bunch of stinking racists. That'll change minds and the result, right? The second reffers say they want a "people's vote," which is supposed to make it sound vaguely democratic. It's not a people's vote, it's a disgruntled losers' vote. Was the first referendum not a people's vote? Now they want Remain back on the ballot. People didn't know what they were voting for! So now there's an exam to have the right to vote? Who reads manifestos before an election? Informed my arse. I asked Remainers I knew things about the EU they couldn't answer, therefore they were uninformed. Jeremy Clarkson campaigned for Remain, therefore all Remainers are racists. All the research says intelligence has dropped in recent decades, therefore it's the young bringing down the average. Then again, the research doesn't show how enlightened, cosmopolitan and multicultural it is to put a traffic cone on top of a car. Also, still hilarious, students. Irvine Welsh said we should take away the vote of everybody over 55 and give it to 14-year olds, because, y'know, 14 is the age you're really thinking clearly, with intelligence, balance and a wealth of life experience. Oh, except for the 14-yr old who the same day headbutted his mother for not letting him play Fortnite. Good one, Irvine, Fascism dressed up as right on, maaaaaan. When has taking people's rights away ever been a good thing? But Irvine is 59, so that obvs makes him stupid and uninformed. A 3-option referendum would split the opposition, as Gavin Essler well knows, giving Remain a victory by default. Mugabe would love the gerrymandering. I don't have a problem with a second referendum but it's like a computer function we're already into: we've already answered the first question, do we want to leave. The next question is then do you want to accept the deal offered? A second referendum can only be deal or no deal. Putting Remain back on the table would be exactly the kind of undemocratic move people said they'd had enough of from the EU. You can't treat people that way. That's why we're where we are, FFS! Both sides used lies and disinformation. There was never going to be £350m for the NHS. That became like Rafa's transfer spending under H&G: the media cooing that he's spent £200m, when everybody knows it doesn't work like that. Duh. NHS funding is a complex matter, depending on the govt and economy of the day. But complexity has been largely bypassed by both sides in the debate. Simplicity decided everything has been fine and dandy for 40 years and once we leave, the smell of scorched earth will fill our nostrils. The sky will fall. Well, it could happen. Wait, "could" happen? Is that a fact or an opinion? We've had a lot of "could" headlines and to ignore them is to be labelled "anti-expert." Well, informed people will have read Tetlock's research on expert predictions. Over 80,000 3-option predictions from over 300 experts in their field on political and financial issues. Would there be more freedom/prosperity, less of it or about the same? As Tetlock's colleague, the Nobel-prizewinning economist Daniel Kahneman said, "the results were devastating and the experts did worse than dart-throwing monkeys, which would have at least spread their predictions across an average." He suggested the problem is their expertise had convinced them they could predict the future as well as explain the past and present. Nuh-uh. Among other claims Remain made: "The EU kept the peace for 40 years." Really? Without an army? What part did NATO play in all that? "The EU protects workers' rights." Really? it allowed Amazon to move profits around the EU to pay less tax than one of its workers. Meanwhile, one of its workers sleeps in a tent outside a fulfilment centre, because he can't afford to pay for Amazon's own bus. "The EU protects human rights." Really? In 2012, the EU leaders refused to sign the discrimination directive, because it was too expensive and they're laws individual nations can do better themselves. Wait, isn't that what Leave was saying? And we can. We have gay marriage, and from the party which once gave us Section 28! - while some EU nations still mandatorily sterilise transgender people. The European court told those nations to stop it but they can't enforce it. Some protection. But Sting and Geldof explained all this, I'm pretty sure. Or they could. But then Remainers knew all this, being informed and whatnot. They read the arguments, which led them to proclaim daily, "Leave has no facts." Well, they read the Guardian's Remain-supporting showbiz and fashion correspondents, complaining about the cost of a Pina Colada in the Maldives if we leave. They didn't read the Guardian's business editor ,or its environment correspondent, or its feminist correspondents, all of whom had facts for leaving. Left wing facts. It's a nonsense that it's been presented as Nigel Farage's plaything, a right wing move, which will forever damn us to Tory rule in perpetuity. Arch-socialist Paul Mason at the Guardian wanted Brexit but wanted to wait for a Labour government to do it. That could still happen, because Corbyn knows his radical programme would be illegal under EU law. He just won't admit it for fear of losing Remain votes, those comfy middle class suckers who think Remain is the right-on left wing option. It's appropriate we're discussing this on a football forum, because the whole debate has become fanatical, when few people were 100% either way. We've always held Europe at arm's length. Ken Clarke, the ultimate Remainer, finally admitted joining the Euro would've been a mistake, though it took him until 2012 to do it. Nobody wants a bar of full political integration. Many Remainers wanted immigration controlled and many people made up their minds either way shortly before the referendum. Euroscepticism is not all on one side of the house. I rarely agree with Peter Hitchens but I had to nod when he said, "We'll go from being half in the EU to being half out of it." It's appropriate the OP was a clip comparing Brexit to a break-up. I've compared it to an abused wife. She wants to leave. He has many reasons why life after his beatings would be worse. No home, fight for the kids, he's keeping the car and the CDs. So she stays. Because she can change him from the inside, right? He'll be willing to reform now he knows she was going to leave. He'll be reasonable. He's not going to think he's got her right where he wants her. After all, what's she gonna do, leave?
so plans are now being published for no deal by all. at this points may's votes are pointless as everyone has moved on from the deal she had now and are working on the next level of oh ****. its all goodwill at this point on both sides. the contingency plans for flights, freight and such are there
so corbyn confirms he is for leave as he says he will do Brexit but have a handy time getting a "better" deal. I presume by this he means getting a majority that doesn't need dup and signing up for ni to have its own regulations to get rid of backstop. I also presume this means he lives in the same fantasy the rest of them do.
The entire reason for ploughing on with this, now the fantasy sunlit uplands arguments for Brexit have finally collided with reality, is ‘the will of the people’. That was 2 1/2 years ago, and it’s by no means certain, that Brexit is still the ‘will of the people’ now there’s some actual detail around the realities of what a Brexit deal will deliver. Personally, I don’t see how any supposed democracy can be still committed to the biggest political and constitutional issue to face the nation since the last World War, when the NCA are currently investigating the true source of £8m of funds used to help deliver what was, a very narrow victory. The whole thing should be put on hold until that investigation concludes.
Agreed Tobes. The whole will of the people is as though it was a land slide, the country was completely split down the middle. I don't see what's wrong with letting the same people decide which of these deals or none is best
it doesn't suit all agendas. it only suits Remainer agenda. we have a) corbyn finally deciding its safe to admit hes for leave. he thibks he cannot lose an election now. b) may who **** knows what she thinks. c) some tories saying they are for a "controlled" no deal. d) Blair campaigning for new referendum. e) mogg playing games. f) davies and mophead have vanished so people forget they are responsible for this deal that's not to be accepted no matter what. g)today Andrea Leadsom warns MPs they cannot stop a no-deal Brexit unless they approve an alternative plan for Britain to leave EU so after weeks of debate they need to be reminded that fantasy deals that don't exist are not an alternative to mays deal or no deal. reality check here. by 21st January there must be a vote. deal or no deal.
- Carrying this out will be completely undemocratic and therefore unacceptable. The Brexiteers are saying this for doing a second referendum. Reason: Parliament has to carry out the wishes of the 2016 referendum electorate. May’s main argument against the new referendum. The Remainers are saying exactly the same thing for NOT carrying out a second referendum or people’s vote. Reason: not giving the people a chance to decide their economic future in the face of awful odds and Parliament unable to decide. Both arguments are rational yet both cannot be right.
neither is right. may had to be taken to court to get a meaningful parliament vote. at this point in time we are less than 1 month away from the lawful date of said meaningful date. ergo no time for anything but a.vote on mays deal or accept a no deal. the only other possible outcome is brexit is "postponed" there can be no referendum or further negotiations in the time left. a) accept may deal which in effect is the same thing as extension assuming negotiated future relationship is closer than backstop so it will never be triggered. =Norway. b) accept no deal and the consequences thereof. c) extend article 50 and live in same status as Norway model neither in nor out as eu needs to have elections. a and c leave UK aligned to eu regulations. b leaves UK open to financial trouble.
