And risk breaking the trust of a lot of people. Nearly 37% of the country, which is quite a lot.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
And risk breaking the trust of a lot of people. Nearly 37% of the country, which is quite a lot.
It's quite clear that it's what it will become. The question will be leave with X deal or stay.
But you cant do that because you would need to negotiate a customs union deal with the EU. Only then could that be a realistic option on the ballot paper. The reason people want remain on the ballot is now that we know the details of the alternative (May's deal), do you want to proceed. Both sides are known. If there was a customs union, no-one would know the specific details of that.
What a mess. Maybot isn't going to leave, she probably knows her deal won't get voted in so she'll drag her heels. 
Funnily enough she called it right when she said parliament agrees what it doesn't want but no one has a way of saying what they actually do want.
Funnily enough she called it right when she said parliament agrees what it doesn't want but no one has a way of saying what they actually do want.
No he's not, he's a charlatan and a turncoat. He only has his personal interests at heart. The man is joke. Is it any wonder by people have no respect for Politicians.
It doesn't say that though, it says that any agreement brought by the current parliament has to be agreed by the electorate and there is only one withdrawal agreement. If parliament is dissolved and say there is a GE and say Labour win it, then the amendment ceases to be valid.
The EU has already said it is open to forms of softer Brexit. A customs union I'm sure they would allow it because May's deal doesn't have it.
Well the 2nd referendum and customs union got most votes today so some Labour members who abstained on these need to put their country first. Abstaining should be banned in votes as crucial as this and people need to make a decision.
I don't understand how parliament, and the commentating pundits, seem to think parliament can just decide 'customs union' or whatever unilaterally, without knowing what the EU will insist on in terms of rules and contribution, or indeed allow it at all.
@spiriticon yeah, I'm sure they'll be open, but what will they want?
@spiriticon yeah, I'm sure they'll be open, but what will they want?
Yeah, but that would have to be negotiated comprehensively, and that will take time.
This is what I'm saying. Before putting it on the ballot you need to negotiate it to know the specifics. It can't be an abstract idea like in 2016.
I don't know why your interpretation of this amendment is completely different from everyone else out there
I don't know why your interpretation of this amendment is completely different from everyone else out there
Just for clarity's sake here is the exact wording of the Beckett proposal:
This has it spot on:
I don't know guys. I can't help but have a bad taste about the precedents we are setting.
If I voted again (if ever, considering I'm so politically crushed by this shitshow), I could never be sure that my vote would mean anything anymore.
If I voted again (if ever, considering I'm so politically crushed by this shitshow), I could never be sure that my vote would mean anything anymore.
If the customs union really means the customs union and not some version where the UK think they can do their own trade deals. A customs union alone doesn't solve the Irish problem. And the referendum doesn't mention remaining. After that the government have to agree to actually adopt the amendments.
Just don't vote for the wrong thing then your vote will matter simples.
Not the government, parliament.
Yes I know, that's what I'm saying
The Referendum question would be agreed upon afterwards and no reason why cannot include remain.
This parliament ie this government (they're not binding)
Everyone has different opinions unfortunately. One man's meat is another man's poison and all that.
Heard one of the labour MP's say on BBC that they would be ready to let May's version pass if it was allowed to go through another referendum , but she was convinced that remain would be an option in that case. I just can't see it happening . I think the only way another referendum happens is if remain is completely off the table .
This is all so complicated though, I had this argument recently that someone had earlier on this page that it kind of makes a joke of democracy if you now change the decision to leave or have another referendum. You just can't say that it was based on lies and stuff because all elections are based on that as well . Government or parliament's inability to get this through shouldn't be used to have another referendum because it sets a wrong precedent
This is all so complicated though, I had this argument recently that someone had earlier on this page that it kind of makes a joke of democracy if you now change the decision to leave or have another referendum. You just can't say that it was based on lies and stuff because all elections are based on that as well . Government or parliament's inability to get this through shouldn't be used to have another referendum because it sets a wrong precedent
Did you read my earlier post, the election was not fair because the Leave side broke rules. The electoral landscape has changed from 2016, people can change their mind, its called Democracy! Some younger people can now vote, some older people have died and some people have changed their mind. It has been nearly 3 years of this shitshow. People now have more information to base their decision on rather than the lies that were told in 2016.
The difficult decision would be to have the courage of their convictions, revoke Article 50 and face down the backlash.
I mean, we've already been told that had this been a legally binding referendum, the results would have been challenged due to illegality. Its status as being advisory is the only thing that's stopped that from happening. The entire process, from the nature of the question, to the conduct of the Leave campaign, to the government's negotiation, has been disastrous. Leave voters were given the option to determine the nature of Brexit in 2017 with the General Election, arguably: in a parliament democracy if the government can't deliver what you want, your only real recourse is to vote them out at the next election. We shouldn't voluntarily destroy our economy because the government cannot deliver a version of Brexit they were already informed was impossible in 2016.
But there's a sizeable proportion who feel the opposite (at least 5 million online and 1 million on the streets of London), so trust will be lost whatever happens.
Then if you throw in the provable lies that the the Leave campaign peddled in order to win the Referendum, I'm not sure there are many who are going to have faith in politics regardless of the outcome. It's not so much a risk, as you claim but an inevitability.
And let's not forget all the kids who weren't allowed to vote at all, despite the Brexit vote inordinately affecting them. There's going to be a loss of trust in Democratic institutions for decades to come. Probably more so than if we simply left. The future is already aguably more fecked than the present.
Either way, British politics is going to be hobbled. We'd might as well keep our economy if we can.
Sure, we can vote again. But the issue is that the result of the first referendum was never implemented and may never have the chance to be implemented. We need to implement that result BEFORE a second vote takes place. Like I said, if we leave and then vote to come back in later, absolutely no problem with that.
Not gonna go into what was illegal or what not in term of campaigning, at the end of the day we have to take responsibility for the X we put on the paper.
Exactly, time to call the 2016 vote out for what it was, illegal but everyone is too scared to do so to upset the people who voted brexit instead of communiating the message to them about how they would be impacted. This is where Labour especially have failed.
Yes, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of utterly destroying the country's economy. If MP's can't act like adults and refuse to opt for a viable Brexit model (as has been the case here) then the only options are to revoke or vote again.
You're conflating two things. If parliament votes for something, it doesn't matter if it had government support or not.
My personal opinion is the Leave campaign openly lied to the public on major campaign issues renders the whole vote meaningless. It's a dangerous precedent to set that politicians can brashly exaggerate and lie to the public and for their to be no consequences. Politicians that so brashly lie to the public should be removed altogether from politics, it's a farce that they can immediately rescind key issues hours after the result is called. It's ridiculous that these people are then put in the Government. It's frankly disgraceful.
That only works for things that work both ways. There's genuinely no benefits for your everyday person to brexit. Only negatives. Any real potential benefits brexiters were told they could get have been categorically proven to be false. So anyone who is still really voting for it has to either be just stubborn or actively benefitting from it financially at the expense of the rest of the country.
Part of the reason there'd be backlash is because those who support EU membership have typically been spineless throughout the years in advocating for it. I'll agree that there are major problems with the EU that need addressed, but said problems can be addressed without capitulating to the whims of mentalist Eurosceptics. Even the most pro-European governments of the last generation or so have been fairly complicit in this though.
I'm sorry but thats absolute nonense. What are you trying to implement? The ballot paper said leave but it was never as simple as binary decision. Leave how? What terms? The Leave campaign left things vague deliberatly because once people knew the details as they do now, they wouldn't vote for it. You can't just leave and come back later, this is not a game. Why should people suffer. A good democracy can change its mind.
The problem is no one goes into the detail of what was illegal, just bury their head in the sand.
As I added afterwards the amendments are non binding
I still believe there are leave options that does not necessitate immediate economic destruction, with the PM's deal being one of them.
Speaking of things that were non-binding...
Yes quite.
Agree, alot of the eurosceptics have personal gains from Brexit, espcially Rees Mogg. People need to wake up and smell the coffee. This establishment bullshit they have been running is a smokescreen. We need a clear leader and group to ask these questions and get to the bottom of it but we have none of that in Parliament.