|
Post by mattmw on Dec 12, 2018 12:05:05 GMT 1
If she wins the no confidence vote then the Tories are stuck with her for 12 months - hilarious. Bookies seem to view her winning the vote tonight around 7/2 to lose the vote 2/5 to win it - so looks like you might be right
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 12:08:42 GMT 1
If she wins the no confidence vote then the Tories are stuck with her for 12 months - hilarious. Unfortunately there is no winner, apart from Corbyn, if she wins the vote, then we have 12 months without a challenge and we will lose democracy as she will not leave the EU, that is as clear as day, I cannot see anything from that other than unrest. I can actually see her winning BTW, it will also mean the Conservatives will not win another election for a long time, it will have the reemergence of Farage and a new party. She wins but has more than 100mp's against her, we are in a no win position, as the DUP will drop her like she has dropped them!! She loses, they will only vote in another remainer and we will be back to square 1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 12:14:30 GMT 1
What fresh approach would you suggest? Given that position, there is a simple way of looking at this. Parliament needs a new mandate. Nobody can say that 52% voted in 2016 to leave without a deal, so no responsible government can simply let that happen now. Oh, and David Cameron should be marched to the Tower of London forthwith. You may be surprised that i disagree there, on the ballot paper in 2016, what were the options, i would appreciate it if you could show me a box that stated a deal to be struck with the EU..... we all knew then that there would be a high probability of not being able to reach a deal, and that we would just be leaving. In June of 2016, there was not hard or soft brexit, and this still remains the case. It was a simple LEAVE or REMAIN.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 12, 2018 12:16:03 GMT 1
What fresh approach would you suggest? Well anyone who avoids repeating endlessly that they're "clear" about the subject and doesn't repeat the mantra of a " deal that respects the result of the referendum" has a head start. Everyone agrees we've reached an impasse. May has her deal but she knows the Commons will reject it by a substantial majority. The EU insists that's the deal, negotiated, agreed, final. They're happy to clarify aspects if need be but it's final and the deal is there to be approved or rejected. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the negotiating position of 27 countries is stronger than that of a single country but evidently some still struggle with this concept. Anyway, that being the case, why would the position be any different if MPs vote again in January? If essentially nothing changes, what breaks the impasse? Given that position, there is a simple way of looking at this. Parliament needs a new mandate. Nobody can say that 52% voted in 2016 to leave without a deal, so no responsible government can simply let that happen now. Another vote is needed, giving the people the explicit choice of leaving without a deal, leaving with the deal negotiated with the EU or staying in the EU. To avoid the problem of no option having a majority, voters should be asked to indicate their second preference. The country's future should not be the plaything of a divided, desperate, minority government, nor of the Tory party's extremist wing, nor of the sectarian DUP. Oh, and David Cameron should be marched to the Tower of London forthwith. Slight caution on the three option vote, Tony Blair proposed it and it might have been to split the "Out" vote so the "Remain" won. Leaving with or without a deal needs to be a supplementary question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 12:25:35 GMT 1
Leaving with or without a deal needs to be a supplementary question. They in my opinion, should be the only questions asked!!
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 12, 2018 12:38:46 GMT 1
Well anyone who avoids repeating endlessly that they're "clear" about the subject and doesn't repeat the mantra of a " deal that respects the result of the referendum" has a head start. Everyone agrees we've reached an impasse. May has her deal but she knows the Commons will reject it by a substantial majority. The EU insists that's the deal, negotiated, agreed, final. They're happy to clarify aspects if need be but it's final and the deal is there to be approved or rejected. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the negotiating position of 27 countries is stronger than that of a single country but evidently some still struggle with this concept. Anyway, that being the case, why would the position be any different if MPs vote again in January? If essentially nothing changes, what breaks the impasse? Given that position, there is a simple way of looking at this. Parliament needs a new mandate. Nobody can say that 52% voted in 2016 to leave without a deal, so no responsible government can simply let that happen now. Another vote is needed, giving the people the explicit choice of leaving without a deal, leaving with the deal negotiated with the EU or staying in the EU. To avoid the problem of no option having a majority, voters should be asked to indicate their second preference. The country's future should not be the plaything of a divided, desperate, minority government, nor of the Tory party's extremist wing, nor of the sectarian DUP. Oh, and David Cameron should be marched to the Tower of London forthwith. Slight caution on the three option vote, Tony Blair proposed it and it might have been to split the "Out" vote so the "Remain" won. Leaving with or without a deal needs to be a supplementary question. Supplementary questions would over-complicate any vote. As a nation, we face three choices. As an electorate, we should be given three choices, with a second preference option. If enough no dealers and enough remainers prefer May's deal to the other option, then that would be our choice, for example, even if it was only "won" by second choices. If I vote remain in a second vote, that doesn't mean I have no interest in any leave outcome. Ignoring the 48% has been a huge fault in May's entire approach and is why her pleas for uniting the country now (and will always) fall on deaf ears. There are few, if any, outright winners to be found after the humiliating national disaster of the last 2.5 years. Whatever happens now, I don't think for a moment it will end there. The movement for Scottish independence didn't end with that referendum, for example.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 12, 2018 12:41:34 GMT 1
Leaving with or without a deal needs to be a supplementary question. They in my opinion, should be the only questions asked!! The just shy of 50% who voted Remain first time round might have a different opinion. If we do get a vote it needs to result in a clear and unequivocal decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 12:58:31 GMT 1
They in my opinion, should be the only questions asked!! The just shy of 50% who voted Remain first time round might have a different opinion. If we do get a vote it needs to result in a clear and unequivocal decision. Just shy of against just above, what is the meaning of democracy... the leave and remain questions have been asked...
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:00:12 GMT 1
If she wins the no confidence vote then the Tories are stuck with her for 12 months - hilarious. Considering the way she fought the last election I suspect Labour will be well chuffed with that. Many Tories not so much.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 12, 2018 13:02:59 GMT 1
I'm more than happy to share my opinions.
1) Cameron didn't hand over to anyone. May won the Tory leadership election. And what makes you think Davis and Johnson could do any better? They had their chance as Brexit Secretary and Foreign Secretary and what did they achieve before walking away? Absolutely nothing.
2) I'm staggered that you think that it is the EU (all 27 remaining nations) that are buggered. (Perhaps my @rseessment of Britain's place in the world and what it is capable of - particularly with this current generation of politicians at the helm - differs from yours?)
3) Your complacency about the fact that we will have to put up with "a couple of years of further hardship" - any idea how you came up with that number? - also beggars belief. You may be able to take it but many have been struggling badly since the crash of 2008, which incidentally, allied with years of austerity policies, caused a lot of the alienation which led to this vote in the first place. The EU was just the easy target to protest against.
In a nutshell, I cannot see what advantage we get out of leaving. All I see is a major economic impact from pulling out of the largest single market in the world. During these negotiations, we have undergone two years of national humiliation, which has cost us a fortune in wasted money and manpower, for what?
The bottom line for me is that I believe co-operating with like-minded nations on the big issues of the day - climate change, terrorism, corporate tax evasion, the power of big tech - is a better way forward than trying to do it on our own.
People were lied to about how simple it was going to be disengage from 40 years of trading, legal and political agreements. Idiots like Paterson and Hannan told us we could stay in the single market without any problem if we left. And they weren't the only "have our cake and eat it" merchants. Remember all those who told us how the German and French car manufacturers would pressure Merkel and Macron into giving us a good deal? Well, that worked out well, didn't it? Hardly anybody considered the very real threat of Northern Ireland becoming destabilised again. And don't even get me started on all that promised extra money for the NHS.
The EU is not perfect, far from it. But out of all the options on the table remaining in it is the best by a country mile.
Ok as to the thing about the EU 27 being buggered without us. So where to begin, look at how they have handled the negotiations, and the reasoning behind it, THEY DO NOT WANT US TO LEAVE, because we are one of the largest contributors to there budget, it does not get any simpler than that, so they have been as awkward as possible, and the only deal they will give is if it leaves us in a worse position when we leave than we have today, and with the deal on the table that is exactly where we are, take just Monday for instance, who as asked the Euro Courts to sit, and ask if the country could delay article 50 indefinitely unilaterally (On our own without asking the rest of the EU permission) and lo and behold we can... I want our government to have the freedom to save our car industry, which they were prohibited from doing by the EU regulation in 2007 with Rover, I want to stop our money being given to corporations such as JLR being given grants to move a factory from Birmingham to Slovakia. Have you seen the 19000 odd tarrifs that the EU impose on importation of foods, which drives up prices?? 50% on sugar that we could import cheaper from a non EU country Just a few quick points. The ECJ decision was nothing to do with the EU. The case was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians. Just as with our judiciary, the ECJ is independent of the EU's political institutions and rules on matters of law only. It wasn't in any sense a political decision. "Our" car industry is foreign owned. The wider UK automotive sector that supports it, as well as the decisions of multinational car producers to locate and retain plants in the UK, depend on frictionless trade borders. That's enabled the sector to thrive within the EU and that's what's at risk from brexit now. Over half the sugar we consume is home grown. The EU levies a tariff on sugar imports because growers in developing economies with lower production costs can otherwise dump their surplus on us. That would put over 3,000 UK sugar beet growers - and British Sugar - out of business. Is that what brexit's about? Tariffs don't exist just to make prices higher for consumers and trading without tariffs isn't as easy as brexiteers seem to believe.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:03:24 GMT 1
Given that position, there is a simple way of looking at this. Parliament needs a new mandate. Nobody can say that 52% voted in 2016 to leave without a deal, so no responsible government can simply let that happen now. Oh, and David Cameron should be marched to the Tower of London forthwith. It was a simple LEAVE or REMAIN. I don't get why people don't get this. The question was simple, should the UK remain of leave the EU. The question and decision made was unconditional. It was remain or leave. That's why I've never really understood the term hard Brexit. Invoking Article 50 is "hard" Brexit. What then needs to be agreed is how the UK will work with and alongside the EU outside of it. As for Cameron, I think he deserves plenty of stick for walking away as he did but looking to the result of the referendum it was clearly a question that should have been asked to the UK population. It's now clear many were not happy with EU membership.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:09:18 GMT 1
The just shy of 50% who voted Remain first time round might have a different opinion. If we do get a vote it needs to result in a clear and unequivocal decision. Just shy of against just above, what is the meaning of democracy... the leave and remain questions have been asked... So we end up spending all that money and all that debating on a referendum with the prospect of near 50% boycotting it because they want to remain, quite a few of the Leave 52% not bothering to vote or not knowing which way to vote meaning this most important decision is made by around 25% of the population? Best just leave it to the people we have already voted in: Get Governing!
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:17:32 GMT 1
Bored of hearing "leavers didn't know what they were voting for". If you want to stand by that statement, then you'd have to agree that "remainers didn't know what they were voting for". We need to leave and leave as soon as we can. Leaving with a weak deal is pointless, a no deal situation would in my opinion be better than a weak deal. Corbyn now wants her to rule out no deal. What kind of negotiating stance is that?
I stand by my previous comments; Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell would be a disaster for this country. The biggest threat to this country as the PM quite rightly states isn't Brexit, it's a Corbyn government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 13:22:44 GMT 1
Just shy of against just above, what is the meaning of democracy... the leave and remain questions have been asked... So we end up spending all that money and all that debating on a referendum with the prospect of near 50% boycotting it because they want to remain, quite a few of the Leave 52% not bothering to vote or not knowing which way to vote meaning this most important decision is made by around 25% of the population? Best just leave it to the people we have already voted in: Get Governing! How condescending!!
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:32:26 GMT 1
Bored of hearing "leavers didn't know what they were voting for". If you want to stand by that statement, then you'd have to agree that "remainers didn't know what they were voting for". We need to leave and leave as soon as we can. Leaving with a weak deal is pointless, a no deal situation would in my opinion be better than a weak deal. Corbyn now wants her to rule out no deal. What kind of negotiating stance is that? I stand by my previous comments; Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell would be a disaster for this country. The biggest threat to this country as the PM quite rightly states isn't Brexit, it's a Corbyn government. yes, but has been said, many times, no-one voted to be poorer, which is what we will undoubtedly be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 13:35:46 GMT 1
yes, but has been said, many times, no-one voted to be poorer, which is what we will undoubtedly be. again, people KNEW what they voted for, please stop with this as a justification, people think we will be poorer in the short term, Mark Carney said we would be in recession within a month of the referendum, many think it will be a long term better gain.We did not vote an economy Brexit, a Jobs First Brexit or a hard or soft one...
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 12, 2018 13:46:05 GMT 1
yes, but has been said, many times, no-one voted to be poorer, which is what we will undoubtedly be. again, people KNEW what they voted for, please stop with this as a justification, people think we will be poorer in the short term, Mark Carney said we would be in recession within a month of the referendum, many think it will be a long term better gain.We did not vote an economy Brexit, a Jobs First Brexit or a hard or soft one... I disagree, but let's go with your claim that every last voter knew what they were voting for. It was still a blind vote, because they had no way of knowing what they were going to get. Did you know in June 2016 what the deal would be in December 2018? Everyone has a much better idea now and very few are happy with it. The only way forward is to renew the mandate, based on current circumstances, not what was hoped for 2.5 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 12, 2018 13:49:14 GMT 1
Given that position, there is a simple way of looking at this. Parliament needs a new mandate. Nobody can say that 52% voted in 2016 to leave without a deal, so no responsible government can simply let that happen now. Oh, and David Cameron should be marched to the Tower of London forthwith. You may be surprised that i disagree there, on the ballot paper in 2016, what were the options, i would appreciate it if you could show me a box that stated a deal to be struck with the EU..... we all knew then that there would be a high probability of not being able to reach a deal, and that we would just be leaving. In June of 2016, there was not hard or soft brexit, and this still remains the case. It was a simple LEAVE or REMAIN. I blame Cameron because I don’t believe there should have been a referendum. He agreed to hold the referendum because the Tory party was split for years and they were frightened of Farrage splitting their vote. He simply dragged the whole country into a domestic dispute we are a parliamentary democracy, and the decisions should be made there
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 13:51:32 GMT 1
again, people KNEW what they voted for, please stop with this as a justification, people think we will be poorer in the short term, Mark Carney said we would be in recession within a month of the referendum, many think it will be a long term better gain.We did not vote an economy Brexit, a Jobs First Brexit or a hard or soft one... I disagree, but let's go with your claim that every last voter knew what they were voting for. It was still a blind vote, because they had no way of knowing what they were going to get. Did you know in June 2016 what the deal would be in December 2018? Everyone has a much better idea now and very few are happy with it. The only way forward is to renew the mandate, based on current circumstances, not what was hoped for 2.5 years ago. No, but i was not expecting a deal at all, as i knew that the EU are incapable of doing deals, and its their way or no way, I was also expecting us to leave 2 years after the 23rd June 2016 which was again part of the referendum. Do you know what staying in the EU means?? cos nobody does, 2 years ago, people were classed as mad at the thought of a European Army, but that is now the goal.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:52:03 GMT 1
again, people KNEW what they voted for, please stop with this as a justification, people think we will be poorer in the short term, Mark Carney said we would be in recession within a month of the referendum, many think it will be a long term better gain.We did not vote an economy Brexit, a Jobs First Brexit or a hard or soft one... Everyone has a much better idea now and very few are happy with it. Source? Do you have a poll of every voter?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:52:29 GMT 1
Bored of hearing "leavers didn't know what they were voting for". If you want to stand by that statement, then you'd have to agree that "remainers didn't know what they were voting for". We need to leave and leave as soon as we can. Leaving with a weak deal is pointless, a no deal situation would in my opinion be better than a weak deal. Corbyn now wants her to rule out no deal. What kind of negotiating stance is that? I stand by my previous comments; Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell would be a disaster for this country. The biggest threat to this country as the PM quite rightly states isn't Brexit, it's a Corbyn government. yes, but has been said, many times, no-one voted to be poorer, which is what we will undoubtedly be. Sorry, you know for a fact we'll be poorer?
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:52:31 GMT 1
You may be surprised that i disagree there, on the ballot paper in 2016, what were the options, i would appreciate it if you could show me a box that stated a deal to be struck with the EU..... we all knew then that there would be a high probability of not being able to reach a deal, and that we would just be leaving. In June of 2016, there was not hard or soft brexit, and this still remains the case. It was a simple LEAVE or REMAIN. I blame Cameron because I don’t believe there should have been a referendum. He agreed to hold the referendum because the Tory party was split for years and they were frightened of Farrage splitting their vote. He simply dragged the whole country into a domestic dispute we are a parliamentary democracy, and the decisions should be made there Absolutely agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by keithb123 on Dec 12, 2018 13:55:40 GMT 1
again, people KNEW what they voted for, please stop with this as a justification, people think we will be poorer in the short term, Mark Carney said we would be in recession within a month of the referendum, many think it will be a long term better gain.We did not vote an economy Brexit, a Jobs First Brexit or a hard or soft one... I disagree, but let's go with your claim that every last voter knew what they were voting for. It was still a blind vote, because they had no way of knowing what they were going to get. Did you know in June 2016 what the deal would be in December 2018? Everyone has a much better idea now and very few are happy with it. The only way forward is to renew the mandate, based on current circumstances, not what was hoped for 2.5 years ago. I know what I voted for and that was to leave this money pit EU German/Franco franchise. I would have happily walked away the day after the referendum with no deal whatsoever and happy to do so still, even more so now because Mrs May is basically handing back so much power to the EU it's hardly worth leaving. It doesnt matter how you paint it the remainers have done nothing but complain about the vote since it happened and have gradually managed to get the BBC & media snowball rolling to such an extent that the country is in turmoil with "we might be poorer, we might have this we might have the other"
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:56:50 GMT 1
people voted for a multitude of reasons, but for many it was the open goal of the chance to stick 2 fingers up to Cameron without an election.
Every commentator, including the Govt recognises that we will be poorer, its just a question of by how much.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 12, 2018 13:58:00 GMT 1
yes, but has been said, many times, no-one voted to be poorer, which is what we will undoubtedly be. again, people KNEW what they voted for, please stop with this as a justification, people think we will be poorer in the short term, Mark Carney said we would be in recession within a month of the referendum, many think it will be a long term better gain.We did not vote an economy Brexit, a Jobs First Brexit or a hard or soft one... Again with the dodgy "facts" … Carney said nothing of the kind. In May 2016, what he said was reported as: The Bank of England has warned for the first time that Britain could slide into recession in the aftermath of a vote to leave the EU in next month’s referendum.
Governor Mark Carney also warned Brexit could knock the pound sharply lower, stoke inflation and raise unemployment. That would leave the Bank with a difficult balancing act as it decides whether to cut, hold or raise interest rates to counter opposing forces, Carney added.
He said there were a range of possible scenarios for the economy in the event of Brexit and these “could possibly include a technical recession” – defined as two consecutive quarters of shrinking GDP.
“A vote to leave the EU could have material economic effects – on the exchange rate, on demand and on the economy’s supply potential – that could affect the appropriate setting of monetary policy,” Carney told a news conference.No mention of "within a month" or any other timescale. No assertion that we "would" be in recession, just that we could be. No prediction of what would happen, just a reference to "a range of possible scenarios". The inconsistency of the brextremist argument is never better illustrated than when they claim the referendum wasn't about the economy and that a "period of hardship" is an acceptable price to pay but then shriek "project fear! project fear!" the moment anyone tries to analyse what that might mean.
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Dec 12, 2018 13:58:58 GMT 1
Keith, do you think if the vote had gone the other way, that Farage and UKIP cronies would have said "fair enough, we'll stop campaigning and disband"? Of course they wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by keithb123 on Dec 12, 2018 13:59:04 GMT 1
You may be surprised that i disagree there, on the ballot paper in 2016, what were the options, i would appreciate it if you could show me a box that stated a deal to be struck with the EU..... we all knew then that there would be a high probability of not being able to reach a deal, and that we would just be leaving. In June of 2016, there was not hard or soft brexit, and this still remains the case. It was a simple LEAVE or REMAIN. I blame Cameron because I don’t believe there should have been a referendum. He agreed to hold the referendum because the Tory party was split for years and they were frightened of Farrage splitting their vote. He simply dragged the whole country into a domestic dispute we are a parliamentary democracy, and the decisions should be made thereThing is Scooter it's not a case of a parliamentary democracy, it's a UK democracy. If Democracy is to be upheld then the referendum vote was, is and should be final, otherwise democracy is worth naff all.
|
|
|
Post by keithb123 on Dec 12, 2018 14:06:42 GMT 1
Keith, do you think if the vote had gone the other way, that Farage and UKIP cronies would have said "fair enough, we'll stop campaigning and disband"? Of course they wouldn't. Maybe not but not everyone who voted leave is a UKIP cronie or indeed a UKIP supporter, nor are they racists or right wing radicals.
I guess we will never know.. Oh hang on a minute, we will when we get the 2nd referendum.
I for one would have accepted the vote as would the majority of other leave voters, the thing is they wouldnt have the same exposure, they would be largely ignored by the media and branded sulking cry-babies. You only have to listen to some of the debates on the radio and TV to see that certain people with big ego's and bigger mouths seem to already know what is best for everyone including the 52%.
Democracy - gone to the dogs
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 12, 2018 14:14:13 GMT 1
I disagree, but let's go with your claim that every last voter knew what they were voting for. It was still a blind vote, because they had no way of knowing what they were going to get. Did you know in June 2016 what the deal would be in December 2018? Everyone has a much better idea now and very few are happy with it. The only way forward is to renew the mandate, based on current circumstances, not what was hoped for 2.5 years ago. No, but i was not expecting a deal at all, as i knew that the EU are incapable of doing deals, and its their way or no way, I was also expecting us to leave 2 years after the 23rd June 2016 which was again part of the referendum. Do you know what staying in the EU means?? cos nobody does, 2 years ago, people were classed as mad at the thought of a European Army, but that is now the goal. <iframe width="18.4" height="7.80000000000001" id="MoatPxIOPT0_46570700" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 15px; top: -5px; width: 18.4px; height: 7.8px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="18.4" height="7.80000000000001" id="MoatPxIOPT0_80071514" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 865px; top: -5px; width: 18.4px; height: 7.8px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="18.4" height="7.80000000000001" id="MoatPxIOPT0_84575162" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 327px; width: 18.4px; height: 7.8px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="18.4" height="7.80000000000001" id="MoatPxIOPT0_53714343" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 865px; top: 327px; width: 18.4px; height: 7.8px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> "if we leave with No Deal, the EU are buggered " is what you said two pages ago. How do you square that with "I knew that the EU are incapable of doing deals"? They would rather be buggered than do a deal? Odd. Leaving two years after 23 June 2016 was never part of the referendum. Article 50 had to be triggered first and then the two year process would begin. But you and everyone else knew exactly what you were going to get ……? The EU army point is a complete red herring. The EU treaty allows for "the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence." The European Council (ie the heads of government of the EU member states) has to decide that and only when acting unanimously. So the UK, or any other member, could simply veto it - it can't be imposed. UK law also requires parliamentary approval and a public referendum before defence powers could be handed from the UK. Shared defence responsibilities are nothing new in any case - we have it as NATO members and we've acted in concert with others in UN military actions and in the Middle East. With Trump's "America First" foreign policy, a long history of burden sharing tensions between the US and Europe in NATO and Putin actively seeking to undermine the EU and extend Russian influence in Europe, co-operation on defence amongst European nations makes a lot of sense but it's still a long, long way from an "EU army" or anything like it.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 12, 2018 14:15:40 GMT 1
I blame Cameron because I don’t believe there should have been a referendum. He agreed to hold the referendum because the Tory party was split for years and they were frightened of Farrage splitting their vote. He simply dragged the whole country into a domestic dispute we are a parliamentary democracy, and the decisions should be made thereThing is Scooter it's not a case of a parliamentary democracy, it's a UK democracy. If Democracy is to be upheld then the referendum vote was, is and should be final, otherwise democracy is worth naff all. If democracy can't adapt to and reflect changed circumstances then it really is worth naff all.
|
|