The point would be to protect democracy. That would be the price we pay for making the decision in 2016.
How can anyone trust Parliament ever again after this to make a difficult decision? I certainly won't.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The point would be to protect democracy. That would be the price we pay for making the decision in 2016.
How can anyone trust Parliament ever again after this to make a difficult decision? I certainly won't.
We could leave with a very soft Brexit, if that's what the people want in the confirmatory vote. Or the PM's deal.
The interesting thing is that people like Lisa Nandy and others on that list voted for revocation of Article 50 but not for 2nd ref. The mind boggles.
I know it's technically a "no" on all the options but I feel like there is far more clarity from tonight's vote than anything we've had so far. The binary option never suited Brexit to gauge majority consensus.
I found it so bizzare that a referendum has more votes than May's deal and the Brexit secretary gets up and says "we should obviously continue with the PMs deal".
I found it so bizzare that a referendum has more votes than May's deal and the Brexit secretary gets up and says "we should obviously continue with the PMs deal".
Definition of biting your nose of to spite your face.
It's not a referendum on leaving or staying.
Tell me what the benefit in doing that is? What does the U.K. gain from doing that over remaining?
Sometimes things just have to be done to prevent setting precedents.
Today you might be happy that they are overthrowing democracy in favour of Remain.
Tomorrow it may be another issue you voted in favour of but the government just plain straight up ignored you.
You have to protect democracy. If you are going to have a vote and then decide to completely ignore that result and vote again and again, then voting becomes a bit of a meaningless exercise.
There was nothing democratic about the lies spun over Brexit. Where is the £350m a week for the NHS?
Given the state of parliament for the last 3 years it can hardly have been said to have been 'completely ignored'.
If I voted for something, and realised the reality was something completely different than what I voted for, I hope I'd have the balls to stand up and say I got it wrong, and wouldn't mind being given the option to rethink if I felt like it.
Wouldn't a rank system have been better? Ie have everyone rank their option from 1st-8th preferred?
Might have taken a while to process but at least Customs Union could have gotten better traction from it.
Might have taken a while to process but at least Customs Union could have gotten better traction from it.
Democracy is protected simply when we next have a General Election.
I think you will find it’s the remain half of the country who have more respect for democracy than the leave half. A second referendum with a leave majority would end the argument, simple as that.
It's not much of a democracy if the original vote was based on shit loads of lies.
But the vote was illegal and nonbinding. Vote Leave and Leave.EU have breached spending limits and one of the biggest backers of leave, Aaaron Banks who contributed millions to the leave campaign is under investigation by the National Crime Agency. They've had 3 years to formulate a plan and none of the benefits shouted about by the Leave campaign are going to happen so its time to look at it again.
The reality of leaving the European Union is that. You leave.
How you leave and in what manner can be debated, but the crux is it has to be done in one way or another.
Similarly, if we left the EU and the country voted to go back in and the govenment ignored it, I would be utterly raging.
I don't trust that shower of shite in Parliament at the best of times, and this whole Brexit issue is leaving a rather bad taste in my mouth.
How you leave and in what manner can be debated, but the crux is it has to be done in one way or another.
Similarly, if we left the EU and the country voted to go back in and the govenment ignored it, I would be utterly raging.
I don't trust that shower of shite in Parliament at the best of times, and this whole Brexit issue is leaving a rather bad taste in my mouth.
what a jokeJacob Rees-Mogg on Peston on ITV saying that the PM has to go whether her deal is passed or not and confirming that he won't stand as leader but not-so-subtly hinting that he'll back Borris.
Her deal getting through is the best hope there is for the UK at the moment, insane though that sounds.
Good luck with whoever replaces her if she quits.
Tbf he wants to be the next pm and he wants to avoid a ge... So he's taking the logical position despite what he said before
Unless you don't.
No it is not, that is not going to help the country. The best deal for Britain is revoke article 50 but Parliament hasn't got the balls for it.
Yes agreed, I've been saying that all the time but realistically they're not going to do it. Parliament has to get a grip on reality.
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.
A first referendum with a leave vote should be the end of the argument with that logic.
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: