Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:51:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?  (Read 2670 times)
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 09, 2019, 02:09:59 PM »

Brexit or no?

Explain to those who don't know much about British politics and the European Union.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2019, 02:11:14 PM »

Leave with a Deal easily
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2019, 02:17:01 PM »


Well, that's proven to be easy, hasn't it?
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2019, 02:26:25 PM »
« Edited: September 09, 2019, 02:31:18 PM by Old School Republican »



Arent we just giving our opinion.

If its only between No-Deal Brexit and Remain then I would go with No-Deal Brexit at this point. Its not like you cant sign a trade deal with the EU after you leave as well which is what should be done.
Leave, then sign a trade deal with the EU. Then you basically get Brexit with a Deal even though it is technically Brexit without a deal.

 I just wanna say though, ruling out No-Deal Brexit from the get go was idiotic in every way, and actually made No-Deal Brexit more possible. Giving up the leverage the UK had against the EU was dumb in every way, as why would the EU then give the UK a good deal lol.



Lastly after seeing how the EU has acted over the past few years, I hold the EU in complete contempt at this point and do not care one bit what happens to it. It really should be nothing more than a trade agreement. The EU doesnt respect Free Speech Rights or Sovereignty one bit and actually deserves to be dismantled
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2019, 02:54:10 PM »

I still believe the UK should leave with a deal.

Still, the realistic alternatives for a deal - either May's Deal with all of its issues or a "soft Brexit", which appears to be the more sensible alternative - are utterly unacceptable to both extremes, which we saw on full display with May's deal and the indicative votes.

Either you have the Brexiteers blocking a sensible Brexit because it's not their Rule Britannia unicorn, or the more fanatical Remainers scuppering it in order to push for either revoking article 50 or pursuing a second referendum, and even if it seems like there might - might - be a majority for some sort of deal in Parliament now the chances of one being presented seem distant.

No Deal means to believe in the almost suicidal delusion that a disorganized, chaotic and damaging exit (which will involve the EU dictating terms later) can somehow be "a clean Brexit", the "Malthouse Compromise" and the alternatives to the backstop - which is overrated as a problem - through visionary technology are either nonsensical or a waste of time.

Britain has wasted months and months on playing a dangerous game of voting down all alternatives just because they're not perfect or toying with an unsustainble No Deal fantasy, both of which are part of the problem and not the solution. If the parties and several MP's weren't so obsessively tribal or terrified of the backlash and the Farage boogeyman they really ought to get behind a realistic solution and push it through.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2019, 03:33:41 PM »

Lastly after seeing how the EU has acted over the past few years, I hold the EU in complete contempt at this point and do not care one bit what happens to it. It really should be nothing more than a trade agreement. The EU doesnt respect Free Speech Rights or Sovereignty one bit and actually deserves to be dismantled

I've been growing up during the transition from communism to democracy. I've seen my country before we've joined the EU and sister European institutions, and I can attest to a tremendous advancement we've experienced since, small wonder Poles have overwhelmingly positive opinion of our membership. Furthermore it's the European institutions are the ultimate guarantee that our present government whose authoritarian tendencies are well-known can't completely take away the rule of law and democratic values. Do I think the EU is in a need of serious reforms? Yes I do, which is another reason why I disagree with your apparent belief it's better to just dismiss all the great thing the EU achieved based on some selected problems of today. Not that I'd expect you'd be too familiar with the issue, given that earlier you've displayed your ignorance on the matted when you've assumed that the European Court of Human Rights was a EU institution, while it's a part of the Council of Europe, which is a diffrent entity.

Oh, and one more thing about the "sovereignty" issue. Member states have made a sovereign decision to enter into that partnership, much like former British colonies, that upon the declaration of independence were essentially independent states, have finally decided to form a permanent union. The fact Europe had overcame centuries of conflicts makes the feat even more impressive. A partnership, I might add, you're free to leave, as the British referendum showed (and it's not the EU's fault they haven't exited yet. It's the British that can't reach an agreement domestically how to leave, so they ask about extention after extention). If other EU countries decides it should go on, and they all pretty much do, then it should go on, as per their sovereign choice.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2019, 03:55:09 PM »

Honestly I have absolutely no idea about what the UK should do. If they want to leave, that's fine by me. If they want to remain, good by me as well (though I would worry about the effect that would have in EU politics).

The only outcome I would want to avoid is a no deal Brexit that throws the UK (and Europe) into chaos and a deep recession. Rescinding article 50 unilaterally would also be a reckless policy, albeit one that would not cause economic trouble.

In my ideal world, the UK should leave under a soft Brexit, either a customs union Brexit or an EEA Brexit (the Norway style deal). It probably makes everyone angry, but that's what compromises do.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,153
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2019, 04:35:35 PM »

Leave with no deal.  If it is a disaster then the pro remain forces can come to power and have a second referendum to rejoin EU and then there will be no more talk of Brexit. 
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2019, 04:36:02 PM »


The EU doesnt respect Free Speech Rights or Sovereignty one bit and actually deserves to be dismantled.

Indeed. We live in a dystopia here in Europe. We have no rights. Every communal Dining Hall, every Street, is adorned with the face of our all-powerful dictator "Jean-Claude Juncker". Our opposition has been thrown in jail for criticizing him. Brussels has colonized my country. Please save us, America. You truly, are the cradle of Civilisation we all would like to be.


Okay, seriously now, where do you even get this crap from? If you had even the faintest piece of knowledge of Europe, you would know that the EU has literally zero ability to regulate speech.
In fact, if you are referring to the american right's reviled hate speech laws, they were passed by the Uk Government themselves. Guess which Prime Minister that was? Thats right! Your Beloved Maggie Thatcher.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/574174/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.trtworld.com/magazine/is-european-parliament-s-new-copyright-law-an-attack-on-free-speech-25298/amp



Want me to post more examples
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2019, 04:40:22 PM »

Lastly after seeing how the EU has acted over the past few years, I hold the EU in complete contempt at this point and do not care one bit what happens to it. It really should be nothing more than a trade agreement. The EU doesnt respect Free Speech Rights or Sovereignty one bit and actually deserves to be dismantled

I've been growing up during the transition from communism to democracy. I've seen my country before we've joined the EU and sister European institutions, and I can attest to a tremendous advancement we've experienced since, small wonder Poles have overwhelmingly positive opinion of our membership. Furthermore it's the European institutions are the ultimate guarantee that our present government whose authoritarian tendencies are well-known can't completely take away the rule of law and democratic values. Do I think the EU is in a need of serious reforms? Yes I do, which is another reason why I disagree with your apparent belief it's better to just dismiss all the great thing the EU achieved based on some selected problems of today. Not that I'd expect you'd be too familiar with the issue, given that earlier you've displayed your ignorance on the matted when you've assumed that the European Court of Human Rights was a EU institution, while it's a part of the Council of Europe, which is a diffrent entity.

Oh, and one more thing about the "sovereignty" issue. Member states have made a sovereign decision to enter into that partnership, much like former British colonies, that upon the declaration of independence were essentially independent states, have finally decided to form a permanent union. The fact Europe had overcame centuries of conflicts makes the feat even more impressive. A partnership, I might add, you're free to leave, as the British referendum showed (and it's not the EU's fault they haven't exited yet. It's the British that can't reach an agreement domestically how to leave, so they ask about extention after extention). If other EU countries decides it should go on, and they all pretty much do, then it should go on, as per their sovereign choice.



The US is much much more responsible for the defeat of communism than the EU is . Germany was set free by America (The west in the late 1940s and the east in 1990) not the EU . If that court  doesn’t affect European law than the EU should make it clear that that court has no jurisdiction anywhere in Europe , and if they don’t do that then we’ll then it’s indirectly their court as well .


I don’t want to throw away the EU as a whole I just believe it should just be a free trade agreement and nothing else , sorta like NAFTA
Logged
crals
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 399


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2019, 05:25:58 PM »

Leaving with no deal and calling another referendum to cancel the previous one are both problematic options. Ideally they'd leave with a deal and later have a referendum on rejoining if they wish.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2019, 05:33:51 PM »

Brexit or no?

Explain to those who don't know much about British politics and the European Union.

That's the kind of over-simplicity that us led in the current mess in the first place, because that's what was (unfortunately and carelessly) asked in the initial referendum. Brexit, yes or no? You can't reduce such complex processes to a simple "yes or no" question. The proper question is, Brexit and if so, how?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2019, 05:40:16 PM »
« Edited: September 09, 2019, 05:48:27 PM by Roy Rogers McFreely »

Lastly after seeing how the EU has acted over the past few years, I hold the EU in complete contempt at this point and do not care one bit what happens to it. It really should be nothing more than a trade agreement. The EU doesnt respect Free Speech Rights or Sovereignty one bit and actually deserves to be dismantled

I've been growing up during the transition from communism to democracy. I've seen my country before we've joined the EU and sister European institutions, and I can attest to a tremendous advancement we've experienced since, small wonder Poles have overwhelmingly positive opinion of our membership. Furthermore it's the European institutions are the ultimate guarantee that our present government whose authoritarian tendencies are well-known can't completely take away the rule of law and democratic values. Do I think the EU is in a need of serious reforms? Yes I do, which is another reason why I disagree with your apparent belief it's better to just dismiss all the great thing the EU achieved based on some selected problems of today. Not that I'd expect you'd be too familiar with the issue, given that earlier you've displayed your ignorance on the matted when you've assumed that the European Court of Human Rights was a EU institution, while it's a part of the Council of Europe, which is a diffrent entity.

Oh, and one more thing about the "sovereignty" issue. Member states have made a sovereign decision to enter into that partnership, much like former British colonies, that upon the declaration of independence were essentially independent states, have finally decided to form a permanent union. The fact Europe had overcame centuries of conflicts makes the feat even more impressive. A partnership, I might add, you're free to leave, as the British referendum showed (and it's not the EU's fault they haven't exited yet. It's the British that can't reach an agreement domestically how to leave, so they ask about extention after extention). If other EU countries decides it should go on, and they all pretty much do, then it should go on, as per their sovereign choice.



The US is much much more responsible for the defeat of communism than the EU is . Germany was set free by America (The west in the late 1940s and the east in 1990) not the EU . If that court  doesn’t affect European law than the EU should make it clear that that court has no jurisdiction anywhere in Europe , and if they don’t do that then we’ll then it’s indirectly their court as well .


I don’t want to throw away the EU as a whole I just believe it should just be a free trade agreement and nothing else , sorta like NAFTA

Yes, the ECHR doesn't have the jurisdiction anywhere in Europe, but it does have jurisdiction in all members states of the Council of Europe, which includes a number of countries that are not a part of the EU. There are many ties between the Union and the Council, but the two are still distinct institutions.

I can't dispute what you've said about the leading American role in the cold war, though I don't believe attributing the fall of the USSR entirely to the American policy is inaccurate, as the whole system was dysfunctional and the weight of its ineffectiveness was just as a major factor. I've mentioned this to illustrate where my country was thirty years ago.

NATO was not the only thing that kept the Western Europe together during the Cold War. The very idea of European community came from disastrous experiences of the two world wars, the sheer scale of devastation, and it played a role that cannot be underestimated. Joining the European Community also helped to strengthen young democracy in Spain and Portugal, when these two countries joined after years of dictatorship, in addition to improving their economies. It played a similar role in strengthening democratic values in post-communist countries, both during the period of candidacy (when we had to make our laws compatible) and after. It's important especially now when we have parties like Fidesz or PiS in power here. If the EU was merely a free trade associations, it would be unable to make such contributions. Just as it wouldn't have all the complex programs to foster development in member countries. I've been living both in big city and in the country and the difference I've witnessed is tremendous, thanks to EU programs. It's a very long topic on which I can gladly elaborate on some other occasion.

In general, if you believe the EU should rather remain an international organization rather than evolving into a confederation or federation, I respect your position. But I do reject the idea of this being but a loose economic association. All the things I've mentioned would never have been possible if member states didn't agree upon creating some strong supranational institutions with real powers to operate, which wouldn't happen under a mere free trade associations.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2019, 05:53:24 PM »

As of the question at hand, I think the UK should leave the EU. Britain was never really committed to the cause of European integration, so a close partnership based on a mutually beneficial deal would be best for both sides, as neither side wants to cut natural ties betwen the isles and the continent.

If at some point in the future the UK wants to rejoin, we'd just go through the normal process of accession. Nullifying the referendum or simply holding another one wouldn't benefit anybody.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2019, 06:16:42 PM »

As of the question at hand, I think the UK should leave the EU. Britain was never really committed to the cause of European integration, so a close partnership based on a mutually beneficial deal would be best for both sides, as neither side wants to cut natural ties betwen the isles and the continent.

If at some point in the future the UK wants to rejoin, we'd just go through the normal process of accession. Nullifying the referendum or simply holding another one wouldn't benefit anybody.

You have heard the likes of Mark Francois, right?
Logged
LabourJersey
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,145
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2019, 07:41:27 PM »

Leave under Theresa May's deal and pick up the pieces of the British state from there.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2019, 08:05:32 PM »

Remain in the EU and then join Schengen and the Eurozone.
Logged
AndyHogan14
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 982


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -6.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2019, 10:47:50 PM »

At this point, there needs to be a referendum asking the people what kind of Brexit they want (or no Brexit at all if their opinions have changed). No one was arguing that the UK should leave the EU without a deal back in 2016, so it is completely ludicrous to say that leaving without a deal is the "will of the people" and doing so would likely cause civil unrest and, quite possibly, the dissolution of the union. That said, Parliament just deciding to remain indefinitely any other kind of public vote (asking for extension after extension) would likely cause civil unrest as well so a public vote needs to be held on this topic. To be honest, this should have been a two-part question back in 2016, but no one (including Cameron) thought that leave would win so no one planned for that possible eventuality.

Note: I would support the remain option or a "soft" Norway-style Brexit if it were put up to a vote.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2019, 11:35:04 PM »
« Edited: September 09, 2019, 11:39:24 PM by Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia »

At this point, there needs to be a referendum asking the people what kind of Brexit they want (or no Brexit at all if their opinions have changed). No one was arguing that the UK should leave the EU without a deal back in 2016, so it is completely ludicrous to say that leaving without a deal is the "will of the people" and doing so would likely cause civil unrest and, quite possibly, the dissolution of the union. That said, Parliament just deciding to remain indefinitely any other kind of public vote (asking for extension after extension) would likely cause civil unrest as well so a public vote needs to be held on this topic. To be honest, this should have been a two-part question back in 2016, but no one (including Cameron) thought that leave would win so no one planned for that possible eventuality.

Note: I would support the remain option or a "soft" Norway-style Brexit if it were put up to a vote.

Then-Prime Minister David Cameron should have required at least a two-thirds majority before the process of Brexit could occur.  We don't pass constitutional amendments here in the United States without requiring a general consensus of the people and the states, so a similar standard should have been required for a referendum calling for a change of that magnitude.  A bare majority is hardly indicative of the 'will of the people'.  
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2019, 11:41:39 PM »

At this point, there needs to be a referendum asking the people what kind of Brexit they want (or no Brexit at all if their opinions have changed). No one was arguing that the UK should leave the EU without a deal back in 2016, so it is completely ludicrous to say that leaving without a deal is the "will of the people" and doing so would likely cause civil unrest and, quite possibly, the dissolution of the union. That said, Parliament just deciding to remain indefinitely any other kind of public vote (asking for extension after extension) would likely cause civil unrest as well so a public vote needs to be held on this topic. To be honest, this should have been a two-part question back in 2016, but no one (including Cameron) thought that leave would win so no one planned for that possible eventuality.

Note: I would support the remain option or a "soft" Norway-style Brexit if it were put up to a vote.

Then-Prime Minister David Cameron should have required at least a two-thirds majority before the process of Brexit could occur.  We don't pass constitutional amendments here in the United States without requiring a general consensus of the people and the states, so a similar standard should have been required for a referendum calling for a change of that magnitude.  A bare majority is hardly indicative of the 'will of the people'.  

Too late.  You can't go back and change the rules once the game is over.  Brexit is brexit, the people are sick & tired of these games from the opposition.  They need to leave on Oct. 31 regardless of what Parliament passes to try & stop it.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2019, 12:06:01 AM »

At this point, there needs to be a referendum asking the people what kind of Brexit they want (or no Brexit at all if their opinions have changed). No one was arguing that the UK should leave the EU without a deal back in 2016, so it is completely ludicrous to say that leaving without a deal is the "will of the people" and doing so would likely cause civil unrest and, quite possibly, the dissolution of the union. That said, Parliament just deciding to remain indefinitely any other kind of public vote (asking for extension after extension) would likely cause civil unrest as well so a public vote needs to be held on this topic. To be honest, this should have been a two-part question back in 2016, but no one (including Cameron) thought that leave would win so no one planned for that possible eventuality.

Note: I would support the remain option or a "soft" Norway-style Brexit if it were put up to a vote.

Then-Prime Minister David Cameron should have required at least a two-thirds majority before the process of Brexit could occur.  We don't pass constitutional amendments here in the United States without requiring a general consensus of the people and the states, so a similar standard should have been required for a referendum calling for a change of that magnitude.  A bare majority is hardly indicative of the 'will of the people'.  

Too late.  You can't go back and change the rules once the game is over.  Brexit is brexit, the people are sick & tired of these games from the opposition.

Are you sure you're not projecting?

Quote
They need to leave on Oct. 31 regardless of what Parliament passes to try & stop it.

The British people have made it clear that they are closely divided on the issue of Brexit, and I don't see why a small fraction of the country who actually want a no-deal Brexit should get to dictate the fate of tens of millions of their fellow citizens, and drag them out of the European Union, consequences be damned.  Hardly sounds like the 'will of the people' to me. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2019, 12:27:31 AM »

The answer is yes.  The UK needs to stop being Schrödinger's country and pick one or the other, which is why the Irish backstop was a horrible idea.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2019, 02:08:44 AM »



Arent we just giving our opinion.

If its only between No-Deal Brexit and Remain then I would go with No-Deal Brexit at this point. Its not like you cant sign a trade deal with the EU after you leave as well which is what should be done.
Leave, then sign a trade deal with the EU. Then you basically get Brexit with a Deal even though it is technically Brexit without a deal.

 I just wanna say though, ruling out No-Deal Brexit from the get go was idiotic in every way, and actually made No-Deal Brexit more possible. Giving up the leverage the UK had against the EU was dumb in every way, as why would the EU then give the UK a good deal lol.

Lastly after seeing how the EU has acted over the past few years, I hold the EU in complete contempt at this point and do not care one bit what happens to it. It really should be nothing more than a trade agreement. The EU doesnt respect Free Speech Rights or Sovereignty one bit and actually deserves to be dismantled

Er no you don't- Theresa May's Deal was about building a halfway house whilst the deal is negotiated. The deal created a transition period, and carried across key provisions of our EU membership (EU wide policing like the Arrest Warrant, relatively 'frictionless' trade within the single market, EU citizens rights/UK citizens in the EU) whilst upholding the Good Friday Agreement and no-hard border in Northern Ireland.

There was never any leverage from no-deal; and it's for two reasons.

1.) THE EU CAN READ ENGLISH: In true British stupidity our politicians would talk openly about having no-deal as a bargaining chip, and using it as a threat to get a good deal- the EU does read our press, and our media so they if they saw it as a cheap threat. If you keep telling everyone 'oh yeah lets use this as a bluff to get a good deal' people will see through it.

2.) NO DEAL HURTS THE UK MORE: Something like 55% of our trade is with the EU; I'm pretty certain that this figure in the reverse is lower for most, or all EU countries- meaning that on trade alone we're a net loser. Even if I was one of the smaller EU countries I'd much rather be inside a powerful trading block during any turmoil, than be like the UK. Outside of areas like trade it was always clear that no-deal would have such a damaging impact on a whole range of areas (policing, agriculture, trade, our NHS etc etc) that the UK Government simply wouldn't carry it through, and that resistance would occur in all the areas you expect (the courts, parliament, devolved administration, etc)

In my mind believing that the EU should just be a free trade agreement also takes a very outdated view of two things; the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989 and the reality of what trade actually means. Ironically Thatcher was the greatest advocate for the Single Market in the 1980s because she understood that the EU needed to be pushing for the freedom of goods and services to move freely; she just fail to understood that in order for goods and services to move freely and effectively within a single market, you also need a single framework on workers rights, environmental rights and the social aspect
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2019, 02:11:33 AM »

Remain. It's already evident the Brexit was a terrible idea and happened because young folks didn't take the referendum seriously. Staying in the EU is better for a lot of reasons.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2019, 05:33:00 AM »

At this point, there needs to be a referendum asking the people what kind of Brexit they want (or no Brexit at all if their opinions have changed). No one was arguing that the UK should leave the EU without a deal back in 2016, so it is completely ludicrous to say that leaving without a deal is the "will of the people" and doing so would likely cause civil unrest and, quite possibly, the dissolution of the union. That said, Parliament just deciding to remain indefinitely any other kind of public vote (asking for extension after extension) would likely cause civil unrest as well so a public vote needs to be held on this topic. To be honest, this should have been a two-part question back in 2016, but no one (including Cameron) thought that leave would win so no one planned for that possible eventuality.

Note: I would support the remain option or a "soft" Norway-style Brexit if it were put up to a vote.

Then-Prime Minister David Cameron should have required at least a two-thirds majority before the process of Brexit could occur.  We don't pass constitutional amendments here in the United States without requiring a general consensus of the people and the states, so a similar standard should have been required for a referendum calling for a change of that magnitude.  A bare majority is hardly indicative of the 'will of the people'.  

Too late.  You can't go back and change the rules once the game is over.  Brexit is brexit, the people are sick & tired of these games from the opposition.  They need to leave on Oct. 31 regardless of what Parliament passes to try & stop it.

Who is your source for these sweeping (and totally baseless) claims - Weekly World News?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 11 queries.