![]() |
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by BritInParis
(Post 12095964)
If that all it was then I doubt they would be little delay. Problem is many of the hardcore Remainers, particularly in the Lords, are hellbent on stopping Brexit and see this as their primary opportunity. If Parliament is required by law to pass an Act to trigger Article 50 then they can just prevent the bill from passing and force a vote of no confidence in the government and a general election.
|
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12095976)
And that would be very interesting. It would allow us hellbent Remainers to have some peace of mind that the country did indeed want to leave the EU.
|
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by BritInParis
(Post 12095978)
And in doing so kissing goodbye to Labour as a serious political force and ushering in perpetual Tory government.
I'm of the opinion that the peak refugee crisis in June, and anti-EU bombast (Nigel, Boris, Gove et al) brought about something of a hysteria, and tipped the vote to OUT. If Corbyn actually stepped up to the plate second time around, and people were a bit more sensitive to the Brexit downsides, Labour might indeed get in. I've never voted Labour, but I would do so if it meant staying within the EU. |
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12095981)
Assuming Labour took an anti-Brexit platform (as they would need to to differentiate themselves from the Tories) then it rather depends on the mood of nation towards Brexit at that time.
I'm of the opinion that the peak refugee crisis in June, and anti-EU bombast (Nigel, Boris, Gove et al) brought about something of a hysteria, and tipped the vote to OUT. If Corbyn actually stepped up to the plate second time around, and people were a bit more sensitive to the Brexit downsides, Labour might indeed get in. I've never voted Labour, but I would do so if it meant staying within the EU. Europe has been the undoing of the last three Conservative Prime Ministers including Mr Cameron who arrogantly thought he could ride that tiger right up until it turned around and took his face off. Mrs May smartly stayed a silent Remainer for that very reason. If Labour decided to take an anti-Brexit position in spite of the referendum result, and UKIP could stop punching each other long enough to resemble an actual political party, then they would be reduced to a rump of North London constituencies. |
Re: EU Referendum
Well, Britain, Europe and the world has changed quite a bit in the 26 years since Maggie made that speech. Not that any of the older generation that have sold the youngsters down the river would notice. What the pro-EU campaign needs to a Europhile version of Nigel Farage to barrack the population and political class back into the 21st century. IMO.
|
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12096005)
Well, Britain, Europe and the world has changed quite a bit in the 26 years since Maggie made that speech. Not that any of the older generation that have sold the youngsters down the river would notice. What the pro-EU campaign needs to a Europhile version of Nigel Farage to barrack the population and political class back into the 21st century. IMO.
|
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by BritInParis
(Post 12095917)
...A second referendum would also produce a 'Leave' vote hence the remaining Remainers attempting to frustrate the process through the courts.
It's the government saying they'd decide when it happened and not Parliament that prompted the action not some attempt at frustrating the government. If it was going to go to Parliament as expected, there would have been no attempt via the courts. Within a couple of days of the result there was a poll that suggested that those people who "didn't really mean it" voting the opposite way would have reversed the result. And that was without the admission that the £350m for the NHS was a lie. Add in the £ which slumped overnight on the result and just saw a big increase with the news that MPS will have a say after all; the potential break up of the Kingdom; all the uncertainty because nobody is saying how it will happen etc Then there's the fact that the Prime Minister, no less, is on record actually saying it's a bad thing.... ...well, all in all, I'd say it was far from conclusive that the result would be repeated. As I've said before, even trivial game shows on TV ask "is that your final answer?" ;) |
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by BritInParis
(Post 12095964)
That was before this ruling. If she's wise she'll grab the opportunity to rout Labour and increase her slim majority.
If that all it was then I doubt they would be little delay. Problem is many of the hardcore Remainers, particularly in the Lords, are hellbent on stopping Brexit and see this as their primary opportunity. If Parliament is required by law to pass an Act to trigger Article 50 then they can just prevent the bill from passing and force a vote of no confidence in the government and a general election. |
Re: EU Referendum
|
Re: EU Referendum
|
Re: EU Referendum
There's a reason we have the Westminster Parliamentary system of Government and why it has been emulated in many other countries. It works...most of the time.
Just imagine if democratic societies used a referendum for every decision...it would eliminate the need for politicians but how many civil servants to administer and how corrupt the opportunity.....:nod: Some form of Proportional Representation is used around the world but I'm not sure it's any better than the UK system of Parliament....but maybe a House of Lords being elected, but not represented by political parties, may work better and appear more transparent. |
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 12096058)
So the abrogation of political and economic powers to the hegemony of centralized super-state run by elites is a backward step? I thought the diffusion of concentrated power was a more modern outlook or approach. Should we just give up and cede all of our agency and authority to multinational corporations and international financial institutions?
|
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12096164)
Well, if the Act contained a sensible process (why wouldn't it?) and the HoL reject it, I can't imagine many of the electorate will see it as anything other than "elites rejecting the will of the electorate" and, if that occurred, a bold PM may decided to enact legislation that curtailed the ability of the unelected second chamber to prevent the enactment of laws put forward by the lower chamber.
The fact that so many are now questioning the integrity of the high court judges, and even imploring that they be more political, further evidences the widespread ignorance in the electorate. As Ken Clarke has pointed out, if you asked the electorate whether we should invest in the National Gallery or a theme park, you would probably end up with a theme park. The referendum was a mistake, the result may have been an error, the impact is enormous, and therefore at very least, the country should be certain it wants to travel down this rocky path. |
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12096540)
As Ken Clarke has pointed out, if you asked the electorate whether we should invest in the National Gallery or a theme park, you would probably end up with a theme park.
The referendum was a mistake, the result may have been an error, the impact is enormous, and therefore at very least, the country should be certain it wants to travel down this rocky path. I suspect you argue that the referendum was a mistake simply because you don't like the result, and like a number of other referenda, you think that this permits you to keep holding them until you get a different result. The Sir Humphreys of the world would argue that the humble man on the Clapham Omnibus is too ignorant to allow him to determine his own fate while there are others, eminently better qualified, to do this for him. It's thinking like this that has probably nailed shut the referendum coffin. Why subject the country to the purest form of democracy when the electorate can't be trusted to make the right democratic decision? I'm not happy with the outcome. It has cost me financially, but I respect the decision making process and accept the result. I understand that the path ahead is uncertain but as I step off the Clapham Omnibus, I wave to my fellow travellers, who incidently continue to smile. |
Re: EU Referendum
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12095911)
I thought that the argument went something like; only knuckle dragging, "stupid" people voted for Brexit...
US sports presenter Gina Miller mistaken target of online Brexit abuse The US-based Miller posted some of the tweets on her Facebook page which showed Twitter users suggesting that she leave the UK and that she lock her doors. One said that they planned to burn her effigy on bonfire night. She was also accused of ruining British democracy. The American Miller told the BBC: “I even had an email. In the subject box it said: ‘I hope you die, I sincerely hope you get cancer and die’,†adding: “It was absolutely vitriolic.†|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:04 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.