Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Underneath it all the old questions about the future of Northern Ireland are still festering away. Membership of the EU allowed both sides to simply ignore them for the last 20 years, now that's no longer possible and things could get ugly.

This was another example of the Leave side simply airily assuming everyone else in the EU would bend over backwards to accommodate the UK. If there's a stop button on this whole idiotic Brexit process someone needs to have the courage to press it now.

So May might end up bringing "The Troubles" back?
Nice.
 
Today was beyond farce and more like watching Trump having a bad day.

I was watching on BBC World and switched to CNN for other news. Their commentators were also doing Brexit and somewhere between despair and laughter.

I hear David Cameron is thinking of a comeback ;)
 
Today was beyond farce and more like watching Trump having a bad day.

I was watching on BBC World and switched to CNN for other news. Their commentators were also doing Brexit and somewhere between despair and laughter.

I hear David Cameron is thinking of a comeback ;)

Cameron's the one who caused the whole mess.

Besides, I think Theresa May does have a plan - to kick the can down the road till March 28th next year then bring her deal back to parliament and tell them its this deal or revoke Article 50.
 
Cameron's the one who caused the whole mess.

Golly, I must have missed that ;)

Besides, I think Theresa May does have a plan - to kick the can down the road till March 28th next year then bring her deal back to parliament and tell them its this deal or revoke Article 50.

21st Jan seems to be the very latest date for parliament to vote on 'the deal'.
 
Cameron's the one who caused the whole mess.

Besides, I think Theresa May does have a plan - to kick the can down the road till March 28th next year then bring her deal back to parliament and tell them its this deal or revoke Article 50.

Or the no deal that was always the most likely outcome.
 
There won't be a no deal. There's no majority for it in the HoC and never will be.

There doesn't need to be. That's the whole point. In the absence of a majority in favour of 'deal X' then 'no deal' is the default outcome.
 
There doesn't need to be. That's the whole point. In the absence of a majority in favour of 'deal X' then 'no deal' is the default outcome.

Which is exactly why, if she kicks the can long enough they will have to either vote for this deal or vote to revoke Article 50.
 
This has become a textbook example of why "Plebiscite Democracy" is not a good idea.

At the very least it is an example of how not to do it, and we would hope that something has been learnt from this, but I doubt it will be. From what I understand, the Swiss are happy enough with their plebiscite democracy.

The problems come from the fact that the PM (Cameron) thought the result was not in doubt, so the government had no idea what to do if the people voted the wrong way.

As they did, the Brexiters of course want the vote to stand, while the Remainers now want a new referendum.

Moreover, there is a conflict between the referendum result and the opinion of the elected representatives, the majority of the latter being opposed to Brexit.
 
Today was beyond farce and more like watching Trump having a bad day.

I was watching on BBC World and switched to CNN for other news. Their commentators were also doing Brexit and somewhere between despair and laughter.

I hear David Cameron is thinking of a comeback ;)

It's like a Monty Python skit....
 
This has become a textbook example of why "Plebiscite Democracy" is not a good idea.


It hardly seems fair to blame plebs comprising roughly 25% of the voting population expressing an opinion in a non-binding referendum. The politicians who have played games with the whole thing with no other goal than personal aggrandizement are a much more appropriate target for responsibility.
 
Brexit explained in terms of the UK voting to build a submarine out of cheese.

https://mobile.twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222230791229440?p=v
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
The thing is, the best way to understand Theresa May’s predicament is to imagine that 52 percent of Britain had voted that the government should build a submarine out of cheese.

Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
Now, Theresa May was initially against building a submarine out of cheese, obviously. Because it’s a completely insane thing to do.
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
However, in order to become PM, she had to pretend that she thought building a submarine out of cheese was fine and could totally work.
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
"Cheese means cheese," she told us all, madly.
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
Then she actually built one.
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
It’s ****. Of course it is. For God’s sake, are you stupid? It’s a submarine built out of cheese.
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
So now, having built a **** cheese submarine, she has to put up with both Labour and Tory Brexiters insisting that a less **** cheese submarine could have been built.
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
They’re all lying, and they know it. So does everybody else. We've covered this already, I know, but it’s cheese and it’s a submarine. How good could it possibly be?
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
Only she can’t call them out on this. Because she has spent the past two years also lying, by pretending she really could build a decent submarine out of cheese.
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
So that’s where we are.
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
On balance, I this analogy works fine, perhaps except for the submarine and cheese parts, which need a little work.
View conversation ·
Hugo Rifkind
@hugorifkind 12h
Replying to @hugorifkind
Thread ends.
View conversation ·
 
I don’t think that’s how parliamentary votes work. They require voting Yes or No on a bill, not A or B.

But given that the bill is now amendabale, and given the ECJ judgement, an Amendment to the Bill that states in the result of the proposed deal being rejected then article 50 should be extended or withdrawn pending a second referendum seems at least feasible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom