Nobody suggests not paying what you are legally obliged to pay. But it could take an international court to decide that. It is not as easy as paying for your monthly Gardeners world subscription
You are a brave man - given the two "occasions" I think you told us you just missed (birthday and anniversary?) Run quick In normal circumstances I would accept that a referendum result should be respected. In this instance I don't though because the rules were poor and ill thought out (nobody of sound mind should have thought that a single vote - 50%+1 could change irrevocably over 40 years of history). It was political, economic and constitutional vandalism. The result was so close that it is valid to suggest that many forms of brexit like the Norway solution and staying in the customs union etc would command a clear majority. A Parliamentary vote on a deal or a second referendum would confirm that - democratically.
This is a drive by.... The tory party have from the get go have served their own ends and not the nation's in this whole fiasco. nazi nige, Lawson and others (not to mention certain newspaper owners) have all got their duo-nationalities / overseas / non-dom residencies sorted out so when it all does go tits up (probably sooner rather than later) they will be off like a dirty shirt before you can say Brexit-bus. W*****s
Fraid I disagree. TM has simply been incompetent as a leader. If she could do a deal "in the nation's interest" I believe she would. However there is no deal in the nation's interest. I am quite certain JC would have been equally incompetent. Making party politics of this fiasco is irrational
The history of this whole sorry mess shows clearly that it was party political, there can be little or no doubt about that. Is someone incompetent when they cannot do the impossible? As you say there is no good deal in the interests of the nation. There is only a less bad deal, or the ultimate failure of no deal.
I dont believe i was stating any approach? You make a deal and you honour it... Sadly it looks like so many of these fast Brexiteers want to link Brexit to profiteering for the UK... The EU is never going to agree to that. Luckily TM and her team will not let the loose thinkers like BoJo, Gove and Johnson hatch any daft plans
The whole thing was to prevent a complete split of the tory party. A complete sham. The referendum was poorly judged in terms of what was required to prevent a polarisation of views - if you're going to make long lasting wholesale changes to the laws, governance, trade etc., (basically a change in constitution) then the vote should have either gone to an overall majority (abstainers, for whatever reason = maintaining the status quo) to a 2/3 minimum, as in the US, France and many other nations, not just on the whim of the day like this mess. - I don't trust may any more than I did thatcher. It is nothing but tory party politics from first to last and a national disgrace. We've been conned.
Well I can doubt it so can many others. For a start there are two aspects to this. Calling the referendum and dealing with the outcome. The referendum could be said to be party political as there was a division within the Tory Party. But that had existed for 25 years at least. The decision to have a referendum was the result of the voters supporting a party that wanted out. UKIP was growing in popularity and drawing support from all sides - not just Tory. I think Cameron genuinely thought that a referendum would lance the boil. He believed he would win and that UKIP would then fade. Yes of course that, like any policy, will have been for the Tory Party to some extent - no government deliberately acts against their own interest but when millions are deserting to a party that wants to quit the EU it can be said to be in the national interest to end the issue. Dealing with the outcome is just impossible. There is no good deal. TM, JC, anyone would fail. Do you think the Tories think their form of brexit will benefit the Tory Party. They are aware that there is nothing positive in this and just want to see it finished. Labour is just as divided as the Tories. Brexit spanned age, sex, class, party. Agree on the rest. The referendum was shambolic and so has been the response. But pretending the Tories think they have anything positive is ludicrous. Still anyone who hates the Tories will see what they want to see.
Normally heads of state call referendums in order to try to get something they want accepted by the population - if it then loses they don't have to do anything, just go back to things as they were. If ever a British head of state made a massive error in calculation that was it - it was obvious that some people would vote simply against the government of the day, and this protest vote was enough to win the day for Brexit.
Nobody ever accused Cameron of being competent Everything about the referendum was totally f*cked up. From design, rules, campaign to aftermath. It would be a huge joke if it were not so unfunny.
The referendum was 100% legitimised by parliament. It was endlessly debated, including all of the rules to make it suitable for purpose. Their were opportunities for all concerns to be raised at the time with a final free vote for our democratically elected representatives to make the final decision. Both main parties endorsed it and was passed with overwhelming support from the MPs. The withdrawal bill has met many challenges and so far has passed them all. If the result had gone the other way it would be the Brexiteers complaining about the process and the remainers would just have accepted the result.
looks like reform is clearly needed to our parliamentary system eh... perhaps start by creating a decent constitution major cock up by the govt of the day created an unholy mess....
Yesterday we had sight of a MP in pyjamas, in a wheelchair, with a sick bucket on her lap, being wheeled through the chamber to vote. The normal convention of allowing a MP to have their vote taken if they are in the courtyard was overturned by the government. If they treat MPs like this, is it any wonder that Joe Public finds himself in trouble for missing an appointment when he is in hospital.
The referendum WAS agreed by Parliament. However to suggest it was endlessly debated including all the rules is a bit of a stretch isn't it? I do not remember any real debate about the rules on which it was to be held - we were told there would be a referendum and that was it. I do not blame brexiters but let's not pretend the referendum was properly debated or considered. Cameron was so arrogantly sure he would win that he paid it little attention. After the result all Parliamentary votes have been subject to both major parties subscribing to the "will of the people" argument" so the votes were overwhelming in favour only because MPs were not willing to go against a democratic result. The difficulty now is due to TM having a wafer thin majority and remainers not happy that there is no proper accommodation of alternative brexit paths.
I saw that too and do not understand it. However there must have been some reason unless you think TM did it for party gain. I am guessing that given the closeness of the vote the whips did not trust "convention". I do feel on EU matters your once rational and objective style becomes very emotive - I understand why but for me it weakens your arguments. We have seen with others how an argument is least effective when it focuses on extremes.
So as you also watched it, we can agree that it was factual. Such scenes have not been witnessed since the fall of the Callahan government. I would have thought that any government of whichever party would have wanted to put such events behind them for good. If it is an emotive issue so be it, but it happened, and along with many others I wonder what sort of example it sends out to the general public.
Those complaining about the process had ample opportunity to lobby their MPs prior to the vote. Obviously none of the MPs, apart from the SNP, a few Lib Dems and the solitary Green MP had enough doubts to not support the process. The vast majority of MPs, correctly in my view, showed due respect for the result of the referendum they voted for. It was clearly expressed by the government, leave side and the remain side that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. There was no ambiguity about this so this must be the shape of Brexit the government pursues if at all possible.
I do remember a famous Tory doing a u turn... It really should not be about pride and ego eh... Stand up and admit it is a total shambles... Sent from my G3121 using Tapatalk
Yes I watched it and thought how horrible it was. What I did not see was why. How did making sick people move around affect the voting? When I see something odd like that I try not to form my own guesses on why but wait to see what explanation comes out.
I do not think you understand my point. I am not complaining - it was done and so is history. However given our lack of experience with referenda I think nobody really thought about the process and rules beforehand - you would say tough and would be correct. I also agree that despite not technically being binding it would have served democracy badly for MPs not to support the result. Hence triggering Article 50 etc was correct. Where I am sure I differ from you is that I see multiple forms of brexit and they range from Norway style at one end to total separation at the other. It is entirely democratic to support the version you like and champion that - anyone who does so is fostering not harming democracy.
