The people's vote
Discussion
pgh said:
Integroo said:
alfie2244 said:
Vote Libdems last time out?
I actually voted Labour as Corbyn didn't feel quite as extreme as he does today and I hadn't yet forgiven the Lib Dems for the coalition and in particular tuition fees, but I would probably vote Lib Dems were there a general election tomorrow.In an attempt at seeming less confrontational that my sentence above might suggest, my feelings about tuition fees are that I really hope universities are changing in kind - I lost count of the number of times I turned up for a lecture only to find the lecturer had decided they had other things to do. If I'd been paying the current levels of tuition fees I'd have been extremely non-plussed.
Sorry for the drift.........rant over
Integroo said:
amusingduck said:
Why shouldn't a second vote happen, because it is undemocratic? Or is that just incidental?
If that is the reason, yes, wanting the first referendum just overturned makes you a massive hypocrite. I'm surprised you think there's a chance that it doesn't!
We shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place but we can't just keep having referendums until we ge5 an answer I want. I was anti Scottish independence and was very against a second referendum there so can hardly say I want a second referendum here!If that is the reason, yes, wanting the first referendum just overturned makes you a massive hypocrite. I'm surprised you think there's a chance that it doesn't!
However I would still vote for a party that says they would stop Brexit. Hypocrite or not.
It's astonishing that anyone would vote for Labour under any circumstances!
amusingduck said:
Integroo said:
amusingduck said:
Why shouldn't a second vote happen, because it is undemocratic? Or is that just incidental?
If that is the reason, yes, wanting the first referendum just overturned makes you a massive hypocrite. I'm surprised you think there's a chance that it doesn't!
We shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place but we can't just keep having referendums until we get the answer I want. I was anti Scottish independence and was very against a second referendum there so can hardly say I want a second referendum here!If that is the reason, yes, wanting the first referendum just overturned makes you a massive hypocrite. I'm surprised you think there's a chance that it doesn't!
However I would still vote for a party that says they would stop Brexit. Hypocrite or not.
Perhaps others may wish to note how to express their different views without a single being insult given or received.
don'tbesilly said:
Integroo said:
amusingduck said:
Why shouldn't a second vote happen, because it is undemocratic? Or is that just incidental?
If that is the reason, yes, wanting the first referendum just overturned makes you a massive hypocrite. I'm surprised you think there's a chance that it doesn't!
We shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place but we can't just keep having referendums until we ge5 an answer I want. I was anti Scottish independence and was very against a second referendum there so can hardly say I want a second referendum here!If that is the reason, yes, wanting the first referendum just overturned makes you a massive hypocrite. I'm surprised you think there's a chance that it doesn't!
However I would still vote for a party that says they would stop Brexit. Hypocrite or not.
It's astonishing that anyone would vote for Labour under any circumstances!
A good centrist Labour politician at the head of Labour (such as Tony Blair...) would wipe the floor with the Tories, who are the worst Government I can remember, is full of slimy career politicians, and is totally out of touch.
There seems to be a lack of good politicians across the political spectrum at the moment though ...
Integroo said:
There seems to be a lack of good politicians across the political spectrum at the moment though ...
I think there are a few, but they are biding their time.e.g.
Not that close to his politics, but Dan Jarvis looks electable from the centre left
Tobias Ellwood looked strong from the centre right.
I have to admit to being confused as to why anyone, regardless of what side of the Brexit question they sit on, would not support a vote on the type of exit?
The original referendum took place with absolutely nothing whatsoever in it about what Brexit would look like.
Since then, we've had people from both sides of the divide constantly complaining that things are going too far, or that they aren't going far enough. Will we leave the EU, but stay in the Customs Union? Will we walk away 100% with no deal and put a hard border back on the ground in Ireland? Will we commission a flight of winged unicorns to bomb Brussels into submission?
The simple fact is that practically nobody seems completely happy at the moment, and pretty much everybody seems to be saying that it's either not what they voted for, or not what they thought "the people" voted for".
Let's assume you were an arch-brexiteer, and you wanted a complete, 100% departure. If parliament votes through a departure in name only, with us remaining part of the Customs Union and keeping free movement of people, can you honestly say that you wouldn't want a vote on whether that should go through?
Assuming the answer to that is that you would want a say, how can you deny a say to anyone else if what goes through parliament isn't exactly what they wanted either?
As things stand, I'm not 100% convinced that anything can get through parliament. As I see it, the EU can afford to give us one of two things:
1. A complete hard stop. This is easy enough for the EU, because it makes it less likely that others will follow us out of the door, but I can't see how the DUP would be persuaded to support the government, and I really can't see Labour getting enough MPs voting that through to compensate.
2. A departure in name only. Again, this is easy for the EU to do, for the same reasons, but I can't see May getting it past her Eurosceptics.
Ever since this begun, I've failed to see how things could be married up. In what way can the EU possibly afford to give us any sort of preferential trading terms without seeing the likes of Italy, the Netherlands and various other countries promptly joining the queue behind us and bringing the whole thing crashing down?
The original referendum took place with absolutely nothing whatsoever in it about what Brexit would look like.
Since then, we've had people from both sides of the divide constantly complaining that things are going too far, or that they aren't going far enough. Will we leave the EU, but stay in the Customs Union? Will we walk away 100% with no deal and put a hard border back on the ground in Ireland? Will we commission a flight of winged unicorns to bomb Brussels into submission?
The simple fact is that practically nobody seems completely happy at the moment, and pretty much everybody seems to be saying that it's either not what they voted for, or not what they thought "the people" voted for".
Let's assume you were an arch-brexiteer, and you wanted a complete, 100% departure. If parliament votes through a departure in name only, with us remaining part of the Customs Union and keeping free movement of people, can you honestly say that you wouldn't want a vote on whether that should go through?
Assuming the answer to that is that you would want a say, how can you deny a say to anyone else if what goes through parliament isn't exactly what they wanted either?
As things stand, I'm not 100% convinced that anything can get through parliament. As I see it, the EU can afford to give us one of two things:
1. A complete hard stop. This is easy enough for the EU, because it makes it less likely that others will follow us out of the door, but I can't see how the DUP would be persuaded to support the government, and I really can't see Labour getting enough MPs voting that through to compensate.
2. A departure in name only. Again, this is easy for the EU to do, for the same reasons, but I can't see May getting it past her Eurosceptics.
Ever since this begun, I've failed to see how things could be married up. In what way can the EU possibly afford to give us any sort of preferential trading terms without seeing the likes of Italy, the Netherlands and various other countries promptly joining the queue behind us and bringing the whole thing crashing down?
Kermit power said:
I have to admit to being confused as to why anyone, regardless of what side of the Brexit question they sit on, would not support a vote on the type of exit?
The original referendum took place with absolutely nothing whatsoever in it about what Brexit would look like.
Since then, we've had people from both sides of the divide constantly complaining that things are going too far, or that they aren't going far enough. Will we leave the EU, but stay in the Customs Union? Will we walk away 100% with no deal and put a hard border back on the ground in Ireland? Will we commission a flight of winged unicorns to bomb Brussels into submission?
The simple fact is that practically nobody seems completely happy at the moment, and pretty much everybody seems to be saying that it's either not what they voted for, or not what they thought "the people" voted for".
Let's assume you were an arch-brexiteer, and you wanted a complete, 100% departure. If parliament votes through a departure in name only, with us remaining part of the Customs Union and keeping free movement of people, can you honestly say that you wouldn't want a vote on whether that should go through?
Assuming the answer to that is that you would want a say, how can you deny a say to anyone else if what goes through parliament isn't exactly what they wanted either?
As things stand, I'm not 100% convinced that anything can get through parliament. As I see it, the EU can afford to give us one of two things:
1. A complete hard stop. This is easy enough for the EU, because it makes it less likely that others will follow us out of the door, but I can't see how the DUP would be persuaded to support the government, and I really can't see Labour getting enough MPs voting that through to compensate.
2. A departure in name only. Again, this is easy for the EU to do, for the same reasons, but I can't see May getting it past her Eurosceptics.
Ever since this begun, I've failed to see how things could be married up. In what way can the EU possibly afford to give us any sort of preferential trading terms without seeing the likes of Italy, the Netherlands and various other countries promptly joining the queue behind us and bringing the whole thing crashing down?
Well, on (1), it doesn't need to go through Parliament. It just happens. Then we all have to live with the fallout. The original referendum took place with absolutely nothing whatsoever in it about what Brexit would look like.
Since then, we've had people from both sides of the divide constantly complaining that things are going too far, or that they aren't going far enough. Will we leave the EU, but stay in the Customs Union? Will we walk away 100% with no deal and put a hard border back on the ground in Ireland? Will we commission a flight of winged unicorns to bomb Brussels into submission?
The simple fact is that practically nobody seems completely happy at the moment, and pretty much everybody seems to be saying that it's either not what they voted for, or not what they thought "the people" voted for".
Let's assume you were an arch-brexiteer, and you wanted a complete, 100% departure. If parliament votes through a departure in name only, with us remaining part of the Customs Union and keeping free movement of people, can you honestly say that you wouldn't want a vote on whether that should go through?
Assuming the answer to that is that you would want a say, how can you deny a say to anyone else if what goes through parliament isn't exactly what they wanted either?
As things stand, I'm not 100% convinced that anything can get through parliament. As I see it, the EU can afford to give us one of two things:
1. A complete hard stop. This is easy enough for the EU, because it makes it less likely that others will follow us out of the door, but I can't see how the DUP would be persuaded to support the government, and I really can't see Labour getting enough MPs voting that through to compensate.
2. A departure in name only. Again, this is easy for the EU to do, for the same reasons, but I can't see May getting it past her Eurosceptics.
Ever since this begun, I've failed to see how things could be married up. In what way can the EU possibly afford to give us any sort of preferential trading terms without seeing the likes of Italy, the Netherlands and various other countries promptly joining the queue behind us and bringing the whole thing crashing down?
Vaud said:
El stovey said:
Are they still a party? I thought they’d disbanded. They need to do some publicity or get some MPs or something.
They need a modern Paddy Ashdown. A leader with balls and charisma. What was ironic is that John Major allegedly rang him (Ashdown) to say that no political advantage would be taken by the discovery of the adulterous affair.
The right honourable John (family values) Major.
Integroo said:
Indeed, but as I said earlier, complicated questions such as this shouldn't be left to Joe Public (and that includes me and you). It has became very apparent that none of us had the full facts when the referendum was held. Parliament wouldn't have voted for Brexit.
So what questions should the public be asked if any? Being part of the EU as been one of the biggest changes and promised to be even more so in the future. You don't think the public should have had a say on this? You seem to have a large amount of faith in representative democracy and the people who represent us. I wouldn't trust them to put the bins out.
The idea that if I choose someone to represent me and they then total ignore my views and wishes in my view they have not represented me.
I understand why direct democracy isn't the best idea and why you need people to make pragmatic sensible decisions. But they need to follow what the people want or at least try to get as close to it as possible. Not just arrogantly completely ignore it.
They can't just go "no, we know what's best for you so do as your told". And for to long our so called representative government have done this.
You say that we should have never been given a referendum and now we have been you just want the government to just stop it. Do you have any idea of the ramifications of what such a decision would do?
Not-The-Messiah said:
So what questions should the public be asked if any? Being part of the EU as been one of the biggest changes and promised to be even more so in the future. You don't think the public should have had a say on this?
You seem to have a large amount of faith in representative democracy and the people who represent us. I wouldn't trust them to put the bins out.
The idea that if I choose someone to represent me and they then total ignore my views and wishes in my view they have not represented me.
I understand why direct democracy isn't the best idea and why you need people to make pragmatic sensible decisions. But they need to follow what the people want or at least try to get as close to it as possible. Not just arrogantly completely ignore it.
They can't just go "no, we know what's best for you so do as your told". And for to long our so called representative government have done this.
You say that we should have never been given a referendum and now we have been you just want the government to just stop it. Do you have any idea of the ramifications of what such a decision would do?
They do have a say in it, by electing politicians. No, I don't believe referendums have a place in a modern democracy. Joe Public is not sufficiently well equipped to make these decisions and this has been evidenced (imho) by them making the catastrophically bad decision to leave the EU. You seem to have a large amount of faith in representative democracy and the people who represent us. I wouldn't trust them to put the bins out.
The idea that if I choose someone to represent me and they then total ignore my views and wishes in my view they have not represented me.
I understand why direct democracy isn't the best idea and why you need people to make pragmatic sensible decisions. But they need to follow what the people want or at least try to get as close to it as possible. Not just arrogantly completely ignore it.
They can't just go "no, we know what's best for you so do as your told". And for to long our so called representative government have done this.
You say that we should have never been given a referendum and now we have been you just want the government to just stop it. Do you have any idea of the ramifications of what such a decision would do?
Yes I realise that it's not ideal to ignore the referendum result and it makes me a hypocrite as I do believe in democracy. However the decision to leave the EU will lead to much worse consequences (again imho) than the fallout from failing to respect a referendum.
David Cameron (with the connivence of all opposing party leaders - Milliband/Farron) spent £9 million of our money telling the 'costs' of leaving. But we voted Leave anyway.
This is interesting: Leave means leaving the single market. Please watch senior Remain politicians telling us what would happen if we voted Leave. But we voted Leave anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
So to say we didn't have an idea of what would happen is erroneous.
The £9m leaflet said, and I quote. " A once in a generation decision. The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."
David Cameron said, on the Andrew Marr Show, when asked if he would continue as Prime Minister and implement the result that he would.
The failing with BREXIT was not the vote but the way the government (as in politicians from all parties) have tried to deny/delay/disown the result. Obviously the main fault is with the Conservatives but then again the House of Commons must take collective responsibility because they voted for the referendum to be held and they voted to implement the result.
The biggest lie of the BREXIT debate was not the 'Big Red Bus / £350m week' claim but David Cameron clearly stating that; if the country voted LEAVE, then he would stay in Office and implement the LEAVE vote.
(In response to direct question(s)- on several occasions - such as Andrew Marr Show, 10 January 2016)
But of course after 24th June 2016, by obtaining appointment as the 'Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead' he effectively 'did a Blair' (who had invoked the resignation procedure known as the Chiltern Hundreds) and presumably - like Blair - after shredding dubious expense claims he rushed off to exploit the city contacts he had nurtured whilst in Office........
Rather than leaving the country in leaderless, in a constitutional limbo and without creating any BREXIT policies / suitable Civil Service Institutions what should he have done?
I believe he should have appointed a new political position that of DPM/PMIW (a rather complicated acronym for Deputy Prime Minister / Prime Minister In Waiting!).
Whom should Cameron have appointed to the role? Well, after consultation with the party, it would have been his decision, But he might of chosen George Osborne, or Phillip Hammond, or Boris Johnson or Michael Grove but, lets say - for the sake of argument - he selected Theresa May.
Theresa May as DPM/PMIW would have taken over the day to day running of the country. She would have focused on the Party, PM Questions and on issues of the economy, health, education etc. But would have nothing to do with the BREXIT process. Her 'reward' for being PM in all but name, money & status for two years would be to inherit the position of Prime Minister after BREXIT.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, would have been able to focus all his energies on getting the best possible BREXIT deal. As Prime Minster, he would have an existing electoral mandate to do this. And as Prime Minister his position would give him real 'clout' in negotiations. No need to dither until a new PM had been selected, no delay before invoking article 50.
Party politics would suggest David Cameron, technically still PM, would take political responsibility for some of the Government's 'unpopular' policies, in order to give Theresa May a clear run at the next (post BREXIT) election. But equally Parliamentary time could have been made available in order that he had the opportunity to introduce a couple of 'Legacy' policies?
There are parallels between David Cameron after the EU referendum and Theresa May now, after the 2017 Election debacle? Perhaps Theresa May should take a good long, hard look at how she damaged her own political credentials.
My suggestion is that she should appoint a DPM/PMIW to 'run the country for the period until BREXIT and use her political office, as Prime Minister to focus solely on BREXIT? That way political impetus for BREXIT could continue and the Conservative Party would be able to fight the next election unencumbered with the sort of political baggage that TM has now burdened herself with.
This is interesting: Leave means leaving the single market. Please watch senior Remain politicians telling us what would happen if we voted Leave. But we voted Leave anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
So to say we didn't have an idea of what would happen is erroneous.
The £9m leaflet said, and I quote. " A once in a generation decision. The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."
David Cameron said, on the Andrew Marr Show, when asked if he would continue as Prime Minister and implement the result that he would.
The failing with BREXIT was not the vote but the way the government (as in politicians from all parties) have tried to deny/delay/disown the result. Obviously the main fault is with the Conservatives but then again the House of Commons must take collective responsibility because they voted for the referendum to be held and they voted to implement the result.
The biggest lie of the BREXIT debate was not the 'Big Red Bus / £350m week' claim but David Cameron clearly stating that; if the country voted LEAVE, then he would stay in Office and implement the LEAVE vote.
(In response to direct question(s)- on several occasions - such as Andrew Marr Show, 10 January 2016)
But of course after 24th June 2016, by obtaining appointment as the 'Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead' he effectively 'did a Blair' (who had invoked the resignation procedure known as the Chiltern Hundreds) and presumably - like Blair - after shredding dubious expense claims he rushed off to exploit the city contacts he had nurtured whilst in Office........
Rather than leaving the country in leaderless, in a constitutional limbo and without creating any BREXIT policies / suitable Civil Service Institutions what should he have done?
I believe he should have appointed a new political position that of DPM/PMIW (a rather complicated acronym for Deputy Prime Minister / Prime Minister In Waiting!).
Whom should Cameron have appointed to the role? Well, after consultation with the party, it would have been his decision, But he might of chosen George Osborne, or Phillip Hammond, or Boris Johnson or Michael Grove but, lets say - for the sake of argument - he selected Theresa May.
Theresa May as DPM/PMIW would have taken over the day to day running of the country. She would have focused on the Party, PM Questions and on issues of the economy, health, education etc. But would have nothing to do with the BREXIT process. Her 'reward' for being PM in all but name, money & status for two years would be to inherit the position of Prime Minister after BREXIT.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, would have been able to focus all his energies on getting the best possible BREXIT deal. As Prime Minster, he would have an existing electoral mandate to do this. And as Prime Minister his position would give him real 'clout' in negotiations. No need to dither until a new PM had been selected, no delay before invoking article 50.
Party politics would suggest David Cameron, technically still PM, would take political responsibility for some of the Government's 'unpopular' policies, in order to give Theresa May a clear run at the next (post BREXIT) election. But equally Parliamentary time could have been made available in order that he had the opportunity to introduce a couple of 'Legacy' policies?
There are parallels between David Cameron after the EU referendum and Theresa May now, after the 2017 Election debacle? Perhaps Theresa May should take a good long, hard look at how she damaged her own political credentials.
My suggestion is that she should appoint a DPM/PMIW to 'run the country for the period until BREXIT and use her political office, as Prime Minister to focus solely on BREXIT? That way political impetus for BREXIT could continue and the Conservative Party would be able to fight the next election unencumbered with the sort of political baggage that TM has now burdened herself with.
alfaspecial said:
David Cameron (with the connivence of all opposing party leaders - Milliband/Farron) spent £9 million of our money telling the 'costs' of leaving. But we voted Leave anyway.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvwzv...
This is interesting: Leave means leaving the single market. Please watch senior Remain politicians telling us what would happen if we voted Leave. But we voted Leave anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
So to say we didn't have an idea of what would happen is erroneous.
The £9m leaflet said, and I quote. " A once in a generation decision. The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."
David Cameron said, on the Andrew Marr Show, when asked if he would continue as Prime Minister and implement the result that he would.
The failing with BREXIT was not the vote but the way the government (as in politicians from all parties) have tried to deny/delay/disown the result. Obviously the main fault is with the Conservatives but then again the House of Commons must take collective responsibility because they voted for the referendum to be held and they voted to implement the result.
The biggest lie of the BREXIT debate was not the 'Big Red Bus / £350m week' claim but David Cameron clearly stating that; if the country voted LEAVE, then he would stay in Office and implement the LEAVE vote.
(In response to direct question(s)- on several occasions - such as Andrew Marr Show, 10 January 2016)
But of course after 24th June 2016, by obtaining appointment as the 'Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead' he effectively 'did a Blair' (who had invoked the resignation procedure known as the Chiltern Hundreds) and presumably - like Blair - after shredding dubious expense claims he rushed off to exploit the city contacts he had nurtured whilst in Office........
Rather than leaving the country in leaderless, in a constitutional limbo and without creating any BREXIT policies / suitable Civil Service Institutions what should he have done?
I believe he should have appointed a new political position that of DPM/PMIW (a rather complicated acronym for Deputy Prime Minister / Prime Minister In Waiting!).
Whom should Cameron have appointed to the role? Well, after consultation with the party, it would have been his decision, But he might of chosen George Osborne, or Phillip Hammond, or Boris Johnson or Michael Grove but, lets say - for the sake of argument - he selected Theresa May.
Theresa May as DPM/PMIW would have taken over the day to day running of the country. She would have focused on the Party, PM Questions and on issues of the economy, health, education etc. But would have nothing to do with the BREXIT process. Her 'reward' for being PM in all but name, money & status for two years would be to inherit the position of Prime Minister after BREXIT.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, would have been able to focus all his energies on getting the best possible BREXIT deal. As Prime Minster, he would have an existing electoral mandate to do this. And as Prime Minister his position would give him real 'clout' in negotiations. No need to dither until a new PM had been selected, no delay before invoking article 50.
Party politics would suggest David Cameron, technically still PM, would take political responsibility for some of the Government's 'unpopular' policies, in order to give Theresa May a clear run at the next (post BREXIT) election. But equally Parliamentary time could have been made available in order that he had the opportunity to introduce a couple of 'Legacy' policies?
There are parallels between David Cameron after the EU referendum and Theresa May now, after the 2017 Election debacle? Perhaps Theresa May should take a good long, hard look at how she damaged her own political credentials.
My suggestion is that she should appoint a DPM/PMIW to 'run the country for the period until BREXIT and use her political office, as Prime Minister to focus solely on BREXIT? That way political impetus for BREXIT could continue and the Conservative Party would be able to fight the next election unencumbered with the sort of political baggage that TM has now burdened herself with.
That's far to clever by half and shows exactly what level our current Ministers in office have fallen too https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvwzv...
This is interesting: Leave means leaving the single market. Please watch senior Remain politicians telling us what would happen if we voted Leave. But we voted Leave anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
So to say we didn't have an idea of what would happen is erroneous.
The £9m leaflet said, and I quote. " A once in a generation decision. The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."
David Cameron said, on the Andrew Marr Show, when asked if he would continue as Prime Minister and implement the result that he would.
The failing with BREXIT was not the vote but the way the government (as in politicians from all parties) have tried to deny/delay/disown the result. Obviously the main fault is with the Conservatives but then again the House of Commons must take collective responsibility because they voted for the referendum to be held and they voted to implement the result.
The biggest lie of the BREXIT debate was not the 'Big Red Bus / £350m week' claim but David Cameron clearly stating that; if the country voted LEAVE, then he would stay in Office and implement the LEAVE vote.
(In response to direct question(s)- on several occasions - such as Andrew Marr Show, 10 January 2016)
But of course after 24th June 2016, by obtaining appointment as the 'Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead' he effectively 'did a Blair' (who had invoked the resignation procedure known as the Chiltern Hundreds) and presumably - like Blair - after shredding dubious expense claims he rushed off to exploit the city contacts he had nurtured whilst in Office........
Rather than leaving the country in leaderless, in a constitutional limbo and without creating any BREXIT policies / suitable Civil Service Institutions what should he have done?
I believe he should have appointed a new political position that of DPM/PMIW (a rather complicated acronym for Deputy Prime Minister / Prime Minister In Waiting!).
Whom should Cameron have appointed to the role? Well, after consultation with the party, it would have been his decision, But he might of chosen George Osborne, or Phillip Hammond, or Boris Johnson or Michael Grove but, lets say - for the sake of argument - he selected Theresa May.
Theresa May as DPM/PMIW would have taken over the day to day running of the country. She would have focused on the Party, PM Questions and on issues of the economy, health, education etc. But would have nothing to do with the BREXIT process. Her 'reward' for being PM in all but name, money & status for two years would be to inherit the position of Prime Minister after BREXIT.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, would have been able to focus all his energies on getting the best possible BREXIT deal. As Prime Minster, he would have an existing electoral mandate to do this. And as Prime Minister his position would give him real 'clout' in negotiations. No need to dither until a new PM had been selected, no delay before invoking article 50.
Party politics would suggest David Cameron, technically still PM, would take political responsibility for some of the Government's 'unpopular' policies, in order to give Theresa May a clear run at the next (post BREXIT) election. But equally Parliamentary time could have been made available in order that he had the opportunity to introduce a couple of 'Legacy' policies?
There are parallels between David Cameron after the EU referendum and Theresa May now, after the 2017 Election debacle? Perhaps Theresa May should take a good long, hard look at how she damaged her own political credentials.
My suggestion is that she should appoint a DPM/PMIW to 'run the country for the period until BREXIT and use her political office, as Prime Minister to focus solely on BREXIT? That way political impetus for BREXIT could continue and the Conservative Party would be able to fight the next election unencumbered with the sort of political baggage that TM has now burdened herself with.
We need a referendum.
The terms should be Remain in the EU, or Leave with no deal.
No other solution works.
If we're to remain in the single market, customs union, and contribute to the EU budget, it would be utter madness to give up our say and vote in the making of the rules and the spending of that budget. This isn't even an option the UK Government is considering.
It is impossible to craft a deal that properly resolves the Northern Ireland issue. The EU will not tolerate a fracturing of the single market that allows for free movement of goods, but not services or people; and the UK cannot tolerate creating a customs border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The DUP that props up The UK Government will not allow a deal that compromises the Good Friday Agreement by implementing a hard border in the Northern Ireland.
So the only viable options at this point is to remain in the EU, or leave with no deal.
The terms should be Remain in the EU, or Leave with no deal.
No other solution works.
If we're to remain in the single market, customs union, and contribute to the EU budget, it would be utter madness to give up our say and vote in the making of the rules and the spending of that budget. This isn't even an option the UK Government is considering.
It is impossible to craft a deal that properly resolves the Northern Ireland issue. The EU will not tolerate a fracturing of the single market that allows for free movement of goods, but not services or people; and the UK cannot tolerate creating a customs border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The DUP that props up The UK Government will not allow a deal that compromises the Good Friday Agreement by implementing a hard border in the Northern Ireland.
So the only viable options at this point is to remain in the EU, or leave with no deal.
Edited by esxste on Wednesday 26th September 13:18
esxste said:
We need a referendum.
The terms should be Remain in the EU, or Leave with no deal.
No other solution works.
If we're to remain in the single market, customs union, and contribute to the EU budget, it would be utter madness to give up our say and vote in the making of the rules and the spending of that budget. This isn't even an option the UK Government is considering.
It is impossible to craft a deal that properly resolves the Northern Ireland issue. The EU will not tolerate a fracturing of the single market that allows for free movement of goods, but not services or people; and the UK cannot tolerate creating a customs border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The DUP that props up The UK Government will not allow a deal that compromises the Good Friday Agreement by implementing a hard border in the Northern Ireland.
So the only viable options at this point is to remain in the EU, or leave with no deal.
We had one, we're leaving. The terms should be Remain in the EU, or Leave with no deal.
No other solution works.
If we're to remain in the single market, customs union, and contribute to the EU budget, it would be utter madness to give up our say and vote in the making of the rules and the spending of that budget. This isn't even an option the UK Government is considering.
It is impossible to craft a deal that properly resolves the Northern Ireland issue. The EU will not tolerate a fracturing of the single market that allows for free movement of goods, but not services or people; and the UK cannot tolerate creating a customs border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The DUP that props up The UK Government will not allow a deal that compromises the Good Friday Agreement by implementing a hard border in the Northern Ireland.
So the only viable options at this point is to remain in the EU, or leave with no deal.
Edited by esxste on Wednesday 26th September 13:18
dromond said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
The entire strategy of this People's vote seems to be let's try again, we will win this time, then the matter will be sorted. The vote to leave was the largest single mandate in British history, and a large part of why they won was people feeling ignored by the government and the elites. If we overturn the result, how can we expect people to ever trust the democratic process again? How will ignoring the wishes of a group who felt they were ignored help them? We were told in no uncertain terms that this was a once in a generation decision and the results would be implemented. Every argument they put forward is illogical:
People have the right to change their minds. If there really has been such a sudden shift in 2 years then we will need to keep holding bi-annual referendums.
Those who weren't 18 at the time didn't get a say in their future - what about those who will be under 18 for the next vote?
We deserve a vote on the final deal - if we decide to Remain, we will have to have another vote on the terms the EU offer us to rejoin.
It's only advisory anyway - if that is true then the second vote will be as well.
If you're so confident of winning, why are you scared of a second vote - if you're so confident of winning the second vote, then let's have a third right after. If you're so confident, you'll win that as well.
Most of the voters have died off - in that case, let's ban the elderly and terminally ill people from voting in elections. They won't be around to see the results anyway.
People are better informed - all I see is Project Fear 1.0 being replaced by Project Fear 2.0. Predictions of an instant Armageddon were proven wrong, now we are told with a straight face about such things as the RAF delivering supplies, civil disorder, lack of sandwiches, super STDs and more chance of being hit by asteroids (all of which are genuine no-deal claims)
People didn't know what they were voting for - what type of Remain did people vote for? One that keeps the UK's current trade deals? One that allows us future re-negotiation? One with the option to join the Euro? One that keeps our veto? One that makes us part of the Schengen agreement?
Vote Leave broke the law - odd how people are so easily mislead that a misfiled spending return which was done on the advice of the Electoral Commission was enough to decidedly swing the vote. Yet a £9 million taxpayer-funded leaflet campaign, the PM, Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition, the EU, then-President of the USA, almost every politician and media outlet, the Civil Service, the Bank of England and countless celebrities and academics were unable to do so.
Finally, given that Remain have done nothing but attempt to undermine and overturn the result since day 1, why should they expect people to respect the outcome if it does go their way?
Russian Troll Bot... Would you be ok with me sharing this post elsewhere?, I wouldn't be taking credit for composing it. It wouldPeople have the right to change their minds. If there really has been such a sudden shift in 2 years then we will need to keep holding bi-annual referendums.
Those who weren't 18 at the time didn't get a say in their future - what about those who will be under 18 for the next vote?
We deserve a vote on the final deal - if we decide to Remain, we will have to have another vote on the terms the EU offer us to rejoin.
It's only advisory anyway - if that is true then the second vote will be as well.
If you're so confident of winning, why are you scared of a second vote - if you're so confident of winning the second vote, then let's have a third right after. If you're so confident, you'll win that as well.
Most of the voters have died off - in that case, let's ban the elderly and terminally ill people from voting in elections. They won't be around to see the results anyway.
People are better informed - all I see is Project Fear 1.0 being replaced by Project Fear 2.0. Predictions of an instant Armageddon were proven wrong, now we are told with a straight face about such things as the RAF delivering supplies, civil disorder, lack of sandwiches, super STDs and more chance of being hit by asteroids (all of which are genuine no-deal claims)
People didn't know what they were voting for - what type of Remain did people vote for? One that keeps the UK's current trade deals? One that allows us future re-negotiation? One with the option to join the Euro? One that keeps our veto? One that makes us part of the Schengen agreement?
Vote Leave broke the law - odd how people are so easily mislead that a misfiled spending return which was done on the advice of the Electoral Commission was enough to decidedly swing the vote. Yet a £9 million taxpayer-funded leaflet campaign, the PM, Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition, the EU, then-President of the USA, almost every politician and media outlet, the Civil Service, the Bank of England and countless celebrities and academics were unable to do so.
Finally, given that Remain have done nothing but attempt to undermine and overturn the result since day 1, why should they expect people to respect the outcome if it does go their way?
be well worth others posting this on social media et al, it really is something that silences remainers like nothing else, as seen
so evidently here, not a single peep from any, not that there are many that have the skills to compete with that anyway.
I sent it to one of my best friends who is a remainer, we can talk about anything without becoming embroiled in petty childish
squabbles (as you find on here so monotonously) and always tell it how it is, I asked him for his opinion and this was what he sent back....
'Haha it did kind of rattle my cage I must admit mate, not a lot I can say about it, there
are certainly a few points there that I couldn't really argue with. Where did you find that?.'
Usually a man of many words, but that was it, just shows how awesome a post it is and completely ignored by those that consistently
spew venomous bile all day long on here. Their silence is deafening
.Integroo said:
jsf said:
More than half the people who voted dont agree.
Indeed, but as I said earlier, complicated questions such as this shouldn't be left to Joe Public (and that includes me and you). It has became very apparent that none of us had the full facts when the referendum was held. Parliament wouldn't have voted for Brexit. 
ks. Most people are like sheep they just love what they have already got and will always have that; do not neglect the massive effort involved in a person actually voting for change. As others have said over and over, we knew exactly what we were voting for given the question was so simple.TX.
El stovey said:
Integroo said:
alfie2244 said:
Vote Libdems last time out?
I actually voted Labour as Corbyn didn't feel quite as extreme as he does today and I hadn't yet forgiven the Lib Dems for the coalition and in particular tuition fees, but I would probably vote Lib Dems were there a general election tomorrow.TX.
alfaspecial said:
David Cameron (with the connivence of all opposing party leaders - Milliband/Farron) spent £9 million of our money telling the 'costs' of leaving. But we voted Leave anyway.
This is interesting: Leave means leaving the single market. Please watch senior Remain politicians telling us what would happen if we voted Leave. But we voted Leave anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
So to say we didn't have an idea of what would happen is erroneous.
The £9m leaflet said, and I quote. " A once in a generation decision. The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."
David Cameron said, on the Andrew Marr Show, when asked if he would continue as Prime Minister and implement the result that he would.
The failing with BREXIT was not the vote but the way the government (as in politicians from all parties) have tried to deny/delay/disown the result. Obviously the main fault is with the Conservatives but then again the House of Commons must take collective responsibility because they voted for the referendum to be held and they voted to implement the result.
The biggest lie of the BREXIT debate was not the 'Big Red Bus / £350m week' claim but David Cameron clearly stating that; if the country voted LEAVE, then he would stay in Office and implement the LEAVE vote.
(In response to direct question(s)- on several occasions - such as Andrew Marr Show, 10 January 2016)
But of course after 24th June 2016, by obtaining appointment as the 'Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead' he effectively 'did a Blair' (who had invoked the resignation procedure known as the Chiltern Hundreds) and presumably - like Blair - after shredding dubious expense claims he rushed off to exploit the city contacts he had nurtured whilst in Office........
Rather than leaving the country in leaderless, in a constitutional limbo and without creating any BREXIT policies / suitable Civil Service Institutions what should he have done?
I believe he should have appointed a new political position that of DPM/PMIW (a rather complicated acronym for Deputy Prime Minister / Prime Minister In Waiting!).
Whom should Cameron have appointed to the role? Well, after consultation with the party, it would have been his decision, But he might of chosen George Osborne, or Phillip Hammond, or Boris Johnson or Michael Grove but, lets say - for the sake of argument - he selected Theresa May.
Theresa May as DPM/PMIW would have taken over the day to day running of the country. She would have focused on the Party, PM Questions and on issues of the economy, health, education etc. But would have nothing to do with the BREXIT process. Her 'reward' for being PM in all but name, money & status for two years would be to inherit the position of Prime Minister after BREXIT.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, would have been able to focus all his energies on getting the best possible BREXIT deal. As Prime Minster, he would have an existing electoral mandate to do this. And as Prime Minister his position would give him real 'clout' in negotiations. No need to dither until a new PM had been selected, no delay before invoking article 50.
Party politics would suggest David Cameron, technically still PM, would take political responsibility for some of the Government's 'unpopular' policies, in order to give Theresa May a clear run at the next (post BREXIT) election. But equally Parliamentary time could have been made available in order that he had the opportunity to introduce a couple of 'Legacy' policies?
There are parallels between David Cameron after the EU referendum and Theresa May now, after the 2017 Election debacle? Perhaps Theresa May should take a good long, hard look at how she damaged her own political credentials.
My suggestion is that she should appoint a DPM/PMIW to 'run the country for the period until BREXIT and use her political office, as Prime Minister to focus solely on BREXIT? That way political impetus for BREXIT could continue and the Conservative Party would be able to fight the next election unencumbered with the sort of political baggage that TM has now burdened herself with.
glad someone else "gets it". DC's refusal to start work on an exit strategy prior to the vote and then running off after the referendum with no policies in place makes him (IMO) possibly the worst PM this country has ever had. Detestable little sThis is interesting: Leave means leaving the single market. Please watch senior Remain politicians telling us what would happen if we voted Leave. But we voted Leave anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
So to say we didn't have an idea of what would happen is erroneous.
The £9m leaflet said, and I quote. " A once in a generation decision. The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."
David Cameron said, on the Andrew Marr Show, when asked if he would continue as Prime Minister and implement the result that he would.
The failing with BREXIT was not the vote but the way the government (as in politicians from all parties) have tried to deny/delay/disown the result. Obviously the main fault is with the Conservatives but then again the House of Commons must take collective responsibility because they voted for the referendum to be held and they voted to implement the result.
The biggest lie of the BREXIT debate was not the 'Big Red Bus / £350m week' claim but David Cameron clearly stating that; if the country voted LEAVE, then he would stay in Office and implement the LEAVE vote.
(In response to direct question(s)- on several occasions - such as Andrew Marr Show, 10 January 2016)
But of course after 24th June 2016, by obtaining appointment as the 'Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead' he effectively 'did a Blair' (who had invoked the resignation procedure known as the Chiltern Hundreds) and presumably - like Blair - after shredding dubious expense claims he rushed off to exploit the city contacts he had nurtured whilst in Office........
Rather than leaving the country in leaderless, in a constitutional limbo and without creating any BREXIT policies / suitable Civil Service Institutions what should he have done?
I believe he should have appointed a new political position that of DPM/PMIW (a rather complicated acronym for Deputy Prime Minister / Prime Minister In Waiting!).
Whom should Cameron have appointed to the role? Well, after consultation with the party, it would have been his decision, But he might of chosen George Osborne, or Phillip Hammond, or Boris Johnson or Michael Grove but, lets say - for the sake of argument - he selected Theresa May.
Theresa May as DPM/PMIW would have taken over the day to day running of the country. She would have focused on the Party, PM Questions and on issues of the economy, health, education etc. But would have nothing to do with the BREXIT process. Her 'reward' for being PM in all but name, money & status for two years would be to inherit the position of Prime Minister after BREXIT.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, would have been able to focus all his energies on getting the best possible BREXIT deal. As Prime Minster, he would have an existing electoral mandate to do this. And as Prime Minister his position would give him real 'clout' in negotiations. No need to dither until a new PM had been selected, no delay before invoking article 50.
Party politics would suggest David Cameron, technically still PM, would take political responsibility for some of the Government's 'unpopular' policies, in order to give Theresa May a clear run at the next (post BREXIT) election. But equally Parliamentary time could have been made available in order that he had the opportunity to introduce a couple of 'Legacy' policies?
There are parallels between David Cameron after the EU referendum and Theresa May now, after the 2017 Election debacle? Perhaps Theresa May should take a good long, hard look at how she damaged her own political credentials.
My suggestion is that she should appoint a DPM/PMIW to 'run the country for the period until BREXIT and use her political office, as Prime Minister to focus solely on BREXIT? That way political impetus for BREXIT could continue and the Conservative Party would be able to fight the next election unencumbered with the sort of political baggage that TM has now burdened herself with.
t that he is - I'm not convinced that his Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff