EU will delay Brexit until February if Johnson fails to ratify deal this week - The Sunday Times

[evadgib]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The court that backed Miller and forced TM to obey the law, the court that forced Johnson to recall Parliament or the court that forced Johnson to write a letter he childishly didn’t sign?

How about the elusive British laws, courts you claim exist?

[el torro]

40 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The average voter can't remember much more than the last episode of Love Island.

Thank you for pointing out your idea of the average voter...

 

Sadly, this is the 'argument' of more than a few remain voters - who are so intellectually deprived that they need to believe this sort of rubbish.

[oldhippy]

19 minutes ago, Denim said:

 

Unless the electorate surprise everybody again and get it wrong for the second time in which case it is not binding just an expression of the voters opinion.

The first referendum was not binding to start with.

And if you like direct democracy, why not have brexit referendums every day?

Not practical you say?

Ah, true, but fortunately there is an alternative: it is called "parliamentary democracy".

Maybe you want to look up the meaning of that expression.

[evadgib]

1 minute ago, oldhippy said:

The first referendum was not binding to start with.

And if you like direct democracy, why not have brexit referendums every day?

Not practical you say?

Ah, true, but fortunately there is an alternative: it is called "parliamentary democracy".

Maybe you want to look up the meaning of that expression.

Likewise 'losers consent'.

[oldhippy]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

Likewise 'losers consent'.

please explain what you mean

 

[el torro]

28 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

There is talk of them giving the UK a flexible extension past February, they must be fed up with writing extensions every three months

Couldn't agree more.

 

The EU has no intention of allowing the UK to leave without a 'deal' that pays them a lot of money.

 

Sadly, UK politicians are complicit (looking for future benefits), and the same saga will apply when it comes to a trade agreement .

[oldhippy]

4 minutes ago, el torro said:

Thank you for pointing out your idea of the average voter...

 

Sadly, this is the 'argument' of more than a few remain voters - who are so intellectually deprived that they need to believe this sort of rubbish.

Maybe. And maybe they are right.

Remainers are however not so intellectually deprived that hey would think Mogg, Boris and the other tories have the best interest of working people in mind.

[animatic]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The election is due in May 2020.

 

Long enough for the electorate to understand who and what Johnson is.

They already should know. He was not voted in as PM by the electorate inky the Tirys

ket the people have a say again.

[el torro]

9 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

The first referendum was not binding to start with.

And if you like direct democracy, why not have brexit referendums every day?

Not practical you say?

Ah, true, but fortunately there is an alternative: it is called "parliamentary democracy".

Maybe you want to look up the meaning of that expression.

You deliberately ignore the fact that the UK govt. (which was 'remain') sent a leaflet to every household promising that they would respect the referendum decision.

 

Why do you think Cameron immediately resigned?

 

I'm sick and tired of these 'it was just advisory etc. etc.' 'arguments'!  Cameron clearly didn't think so, and neither did the electorate.

[oldhippy]

Just now, el torro said:

You deliberately ignore the fact that the UK govt. (which was 'remain') sent a leaflet to every household promising that they would respect the referendum decision.

 

Why do you think Cameron immediately resigned?

 

I'm sick and tired of these 'it was just advisory etc. etc.' 'arguments'!  Cameron clearly didn't think so, and neither did the electorate.

Which government sent those leaflets? In the name of which party? And what was Cameron's purpose?

Yes, you have been lied to, but most leavers still support that party.

 

And again I ask you: If you like direct democracy, why not have a daily brexit referendum?

And again I ask you: do you really believe Boris, Jacob and the Tories have the best interest of the working people in mind?

[el torro]

18 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

The first referendum was not binding to start with.

And if you like direct democracy, why not have brexit referendums every day?

Not practical you say?

Ah, true, but fortunately there is an alternative: it is called "parliamentary democracy".

Maybe you want to look up the meaning of that expression.

And the electorate are becoming ever more aware that "parliamentary democracy" means ignoring their votes and views....

[oldhippy]

2 minutes ago, el torro said:

And the electorate are becoming ever more aware that "parliamentary democracy" means ignoring their votes and views....

OK, that might wel be true.

Now what is your alternative?

 

Direct democracy with daily, binding referendums?

Or perhaps the Thai solution?

 

Please enlighten me.

And stop moaning that this is not a perfect world, come up with alternatives. I am all ears.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Who will write the parameters for the referendum, and please don't say the politicians, as you can see how good they are from the previous 3 plus years.

At the end of the day Bill it does not matter what we think of the politicians. Until there is a change in the constitution the UK is a parliamentary democracy rather than a people's republic.

It would appear that those that do not like the result parliament of the last vote want to hold another vote, before the last one is finished.

Party politics has made Brexit nothing but a string of inconsistencies.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

Long enough to have a general election too which is a better plan.

Probably all that can be done now, it's definitely the best and possibly the only real shot of achieving a house comprised of enough people of conviction to get the job done - with a majority, if the Brexit party, DUP and Tories joined forces and ran on a joint ticket, so to speak.

 

This whole disaster is why I would echo P.Hitchen's words some months ago - instead of having a referendum on the issue, having a general election based around electing parties with an specific manifesto based around the EU question would have been the best bet - if the Brexit party had existed in 2016 headed by its current lot then the UK would have had someone in power who was willing and able to do as the public dictated, and it seems very possible they would have won such an election too. Instead we had the eurosceptic proponents of Brexit within the Tory party unable or too spineless to enact it and the weakened position of the Tory gov. unable to command the house. Party politics and saving one's career being a major factor in this failure of government too. Effectively the country was left with no one wanting to do the dirty deed - we got Theresa May and we're still living with her Remainer's Brexit treaty to this day. It seems crazy to me, that after the most important vote in a lifetime we were left with those who had campaigned hardest and were best placed to deliver Brexit - totally unable to as they were not in government or if they were, were unable to lead, while those who were in government and best placed to enact it - totally inept and unwilling or unable to do so.

 

A *fair and unadulterated* general election now is perhaps a 2nd bite of the cherry that no one expected to be bitten in the first place. All we can do is hope that we get one, because I think we all know what the outcome would be.

[Monomial]

2 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

My only problem with having Brexit "Decided" via a General Election is that you would have to balance other subjects (NHS, Policing, Education, Budget etc...), so somebody who was anti-Brexit, may find themselves voting for Labour despite them not agreeing with their policies on Education for example or somebody pro-Brexit find themselves voting for the Tories despite not agreeing with their policies on NHS etc... 

 

IMHO Brexit should be a standalone "Vote" hence via Referendum 

 

This seems to be the standard argument that I hear in support of a second referendum, but I personally don't understand the logic. Brexit is a very important issue, just like all the other domestic issues in the UK.   The idea of a general election is to find one candidate who most closely supports your value system in totality. If there isn't one, then you have to make compromises and pick the best of the worst.

 

You can't pick and choose which pieces of a candidate's political platform suit you. If you were to take this attitude going forward, why stop at brexit as the only issue that merits this special treatment? Or how about hybrid models? Why not pick and choose on every vote? I'd like to vote for this candidate on issues of taxes, and this other candidate for issues of environment. So lets allow each district to have 2 representatives, and then have a referendum each time to decide which candidate gets to vote on which bill? This is a logical extension of the "brexit is special" meme.

 

Brexit is an important part of the national policy, just like all the other concerns. This idea of splitting out the brexit vote because it upsets the political status quo when choosing someone to vote for ignores the bigger issue of what a representative democracy really means. 

 

It was a mistake for the UK to mix direct and representative democracy like they did in the 2016 referendum, however the courts already ruled on that.  The people chose the direction, and the representatives need to implement the policy. Therefore, when you have a government incapable of doing their job as ordered by the court, you need to replace them. Another direct democracy referendum would only further the messiness and decay of the current system. You can't erase the mistake already made by making another mistake.

[DannyCarlton]

3 hours ago, evadgib said:

Aided and abetted by (and see previous post).

Would that be Robin Tilbrook, founder and leader of the English Democrats who's members are primarily defectors from the National Front?

[SheungWan]

You deliberately ignore the fact that the UK govt. (which was 'remain') sent a leaflet to every household promising that they would respect the referendum decision.
 
Why do you think Cameron immediately resigned?
 
I'm sick and tired of these 'it was just advisory etc. etc.' 'arguments'!  Cameron clearly didn't think so, and neither did the electorate.

And Hard Brexiteers ignore the fact that no-deal Brexit was not on the voting paper.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

And Hard Brexiteers ignore the fact that no-deal Brexit was not on the voting paper.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

No, it wasn't. Leave or Remain was. There is ambiguity to both of course. As in 1973 the same binary choice was made, however fast-forward 46 years and the EU 'status quo' as Remainers love to deem it, is about as far removed from what it was in 1973 as anyone back then could have imagined. No Deal Brexit, Soft Brexit, Hard Brexit, Remainers Brexit - these monikers were all devised many weeks and months AFTER THE FACT. The choice was binary - for better or worse - and the choice taken was to LEAVE. 

[JAG]

23 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

OK, that might wel be true.

Now what is your alternative?

 

Direct democracy with daily, binding referendums?

Or perhaps the Thai solution?

 

Please enlighten me.

And stop moaning that this is not a perfect world, come up with alternatives. I am all ears.

If I may chip in: elect a fresh Parliament?

 

It will give a clear picture of the electorates view on Brexit, both to the Parliament which it produces and to the EU with whom the UK have to negotiate.

 

It will produce a government which has a clear mandate to either leave, remain, or to continue discussing the options (heaven help us).

 

The process can be carried out within less than two months. We will have an answer, and can proceed accordingly.

 

As you know, I would wish for a government which would take us out of the EU. However, if it produced a government with a mandate to keep us in, so be it. As you have pointed out, we are a parliamentary democracy. This matter has now moved on so far from the arguments on which the last election was fought, that it should be put before the electorate again. Yes, MPs are representatives and not directed delegates, but this matter is so fundamental, and the divisions in our society are being so deepened by it, that I think it really should require a General Election to be fought over it, and a government produced with a proper mandate.

[DannyCarlton]

15 minutes ago, Monomial said:

Brexit is an important part of the national policy, just like all the other concerns.

But once resolved, becomes insignificat and we are left with a government who's policies we may or may not agree with. A GE is not and never has been a single issue election. Much more sensible to have a binding people's vote, deal vs. remain. Then have a GE on the real issues that parliament should be dealing with.

[DannyCarlton]

9 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

As in 1973 the same binary choice was made

1975, and we were alredy in the EEC and aware of it's positives and negatives so were able to make an informed choice. I voted leave in '75 BTW!

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

29 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

1975, and we were alredy in the EEC and aware of it's positives and negatives so were able to make an informed choice. I voted leave in '75 BTW!

Sorry, quite right - the confirmatory ref. was in '75, not '73 (when the UK joined under Heath). We've been in the EU ever since - through all its incarnations and have witnessed its metamorphosis from the EEC single market which we voted to remain part of - to the unrecognisable entity that it is today.

 

'aware of it's positives and negatives so were able to make an informed choice' - We are of course at this point well aware of the EUs many major flaws and growing issues, and how other nations both within it and neighbouring it have reacted to its encroaching authoritarian approach.  The other side to this argument doesn't stack up whatsoever though, as we have to actually LEAVE and go it alone for at least 10 years to get ANY REAL idea of how we might prosper of falter as a proper sovereign and independent nation, and perhaps equally importantly - observe what will happen to the EU in that time.

 

I'm all for a second (third ???? ) referendum in the future, but ONLY after the result of the current one is enacted.

[el torro]

1 hour ago, oldhippy said:

OK, that might wel be true.

Now what is your alternative?

 

Direct democracy with daily, binding referendums?

Or perhaps the Thai solution?

 

Please enlighten me.

And stop moaning that this is not a perfect world, come up with alternatives. I am all ears.

Perhaps politicians should enact the referendum result?  Let's be honest - honest politicians are few and far between!

[MRToMRT]

39 minutes ago, JAG said:

If I may chip in: elect a fresh Parliament?

 

It will give a clear picture of the electorates view on Brexit, both to the Parliament which it produces and to the EU with whom the UK have to negotiate.

 

It will produce a government which has a clear mandate to either leave, remain, or to continue discussing the options (heaven help us).

 

The process can be carried out within less than two months. We will have an answer, and can proceed accordingly.

 

As you know, I would wish for a government which would take us out of the EU. However, if it produced a government with a mandate to keep us in, so be it. As you have pointed out, we are a parliamentary democracy. This matter has now moved on so far from the arguments on which the last election was fought, that it should be put before the electorate again. Yes, MPs are representatives and not directed delegates, but this matter is so fundamental, and the divisions in our society are being so deepened by it, that I think it really should require a General Election to be fought over it, and a government produced with a proper mandate.

I have also considered this but then heard Tony Blairs argument which I could not fault ... it went something like .... why have an election on one issue (Brexit) why not just have another referendum (confirmatory) and then you can have an election (because we have a no majority gov) on matters that are of greater ideological importance for the coming 10 years (education, health, taxation, social care, environment, etc).

 

I think the issue now is that Brexit is being used as a political gambit by all sides to further their own future governing aims rather than as what it actually is. We need to clear Brexit off the table (either way, yes or no) so we can see the wood from the trees.

 

 

 

[el torro]

36 minutes ago, JAG said:

If I may chip in: elect a fresh Parliament?

 

It will give a clear picture of the electorates view on Brexit, both to the Parliament which it produces and to the EU with whom the UK have to negotiate.

 

It will produce a government which has a clear mandate to either leave, remain, or to continue discussing the options (heaven help us).

 

The process can be carried out within less than two months. We will have an answer, and can proceed accordingly.

 

As you know, I would wish for a government which would take us out of the EU. However, if it produced a government with a mandate to keep us in, so be it. As you have pointed out, we are a parliamentary democracy. This matter has now moved on so far from the arguments on which the last election was fought, that it should be put before the electorate again. Yes, MPs are representatives and not directed delegates, but this matter is so fundamental, and the divisions in our society are being so deepened by it, that I think it really should require a General Election to be fought over it, and a government produced with a proper mandate.

It would also give the EU a good excuse for yet another extension - and they are clearly looking for a good excuse....

 

 

[SheungWan]

And the electorate are becoming ever more aware that "parliamentary democracy" means ignoring their votes and views....

There is no no-deal Brexit to ignore.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

It would also give the EU a good excuse for yet another extension - and they are clearly looking for a good excuse....
 
 

Extensions are requested by the UK.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

I have also considered this but then heard Tony Blairs argument which I could not fault ... it went something like .... why have an election on one issue (Brexit) why not just have another referendum (confirmatory) and then you can have an election (because we have a no majority gov) on matters that are of greater ideological importance for the coming 10 years (education, health, taxation, social care, environment, etc).
 
I think the issue now is that Brexit is being used as a political gambit by all sides to further their own future governing aims rather than as what it actually is. We need to clear Brexit off the table (either way, yes or no) so we can see the wood from the trees.

 
 
 

Clear Brexit "off the table". Another ham-fisted attempt to justify no-deal.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

Perhaps politicians should enact the referendum result?  Let's be honest - they're few and far between in the UK!

And that wouldn't be no-deal Brexit. So sorry.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

Sorry, quite right - the confirmatory ref. was in '75, not '73 (when the UK joined under Heath). We've been in the EU ever since - through all its incarnations and have witnessed its metamorphosis from the EEC single market which we voted to remain part of - to the unrecognisable entity that it is today.
 
'aware of it's positives and negatives so were able to make an informed choice' - We are of course at this point well aware of the EUs many major flaws and growing issues, and how other nations both within it and neighbouring it have reacted to its encroaching authoritarian approach.  The other side to this argument doesn't stack up whatsoever though, as we have to actually LEAVE and go it alone for at least 10 years to get ANY REAL idea of how we might prosper of falter as a proper sovereign and independent nation, and perhaps equally importantly - observe what will happen to the EU in that time.
 
I'm all for a second (third [emoji6] ) referendum in the future, but ONLY after the result of the current one is enacted.

....which wouldn't be no-deal Brexit.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app