31–40 of 1001 posts
The whole thing seems like a slow motion train wreck, except with the potentially and arguably happy outcome of them remaining in the EU.
It's interesting to see this popular sentiment at the same time as the EU is loudly complained about concerning their new internet rules.
So, will they now re-evaluate the whole Brexit? It's clear it was a failed idea to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand (and I am very ignorant!) is why the initial vote can't just be looked at as a stage in the decision process. Time has gone on, and the public has become more educated as to what the true effects of Brexit will be. Even leaving aside the question of how dishonest the pro-Brexit arguments were. It just seems reasonable to have another vote.
Because this would imply a public referendum is impotent - if you don't like the outcome, you can just keep campaigning and try again later.
Imagine if all the great minds thinking, discussing, reporting and debating brexit spent their time on solving real problems facing the human race instead.
Imagine if all the great minds thinking, discussing, reporting and debating brexit spent their time on solving real problems facing the human race instead.
(Yep, loads of sarcasm here)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, article 50 hasn't been revoked, the UK will still leave the EU with no deal on March 30th. This vote is very damaging to the government's position, but as it stands there's been no move, assurance, or guarantees, to stop article 50. If article 50 is activated it starts a two year countdown as the UK slowly moves out of the EU. Even if the government loses the no confidence vote, there's still no imp…
If they are smart, they'll axe Brexit completely now and admit how they misled everyone about its benefits.
Don't fully understand UK government structure but is it possible for the labor party to take over leadership and revoke article 50 before the deadline?
There's a confidence motion tomorrow evening at 7PM GMT. My understanding is, if the government loses a general election is triggered which takes a couple of months. So a new government could be in place before March 29th. However, I think if a general election was to happen then all sides would agree to ask for an extension to Article 50 and allow a few extra months for the new government to decide what to do. Anoth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this would imply a public referendum is impotent - if you don't like the outcome, you can just keep campaigning and try again later.
It was a non-binding referendum - they could have “carefully examined” the result for a week and then tossed it in the trash, politely declining the “advice” of the populace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand (and I am very ignorant!) is why the initial vote can't just be looked at as a stage in the decision process. Time has gone on, and the public has become more educated as to what the true effects of Brexit will be. Even leaving aside the question of how dishonest the pro-Brexit arguments were. It just seems reasonable to have another vote.
Because this would imply a public referendum is impotent - if you don't like the outcome, you can just keep campaigning and try again later.
Don't fully understand UK government structure but is it possible for the labor party to take over leadership and revoke article 50 before the deadline?
Isn't the labor party also against revoking article 50? Corbyn at least? I thought it was only the liberal party that has been consistent in arguing for revoking it.
Which is why we have the hilarity of a pro-remain PM in charge of us leaving and a pro-leave opposition leader in charge of trying to get us to remain.
UK politics is bonkers at the moment.