Johnson couldn't just resign?
He was forced to become a Remoaner?
Sorry, just an ignorant Yank asking questions.
Here I thought US politics were insane. English people are worse.
Not Brits. English.
Tom
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Second Brexit Vote?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
He was forced to become a Remoaner?
Sorry, just an ignorant Yank asking questions.
Here I thought US politics were insane. English people are worse.
Not Brits. English.
Tom
He could. But people might then conclude that he is not the greatest thing since sliced bread, no doubt unfairly.
Have you heard of Eton College? Boris came from there. It has a reputation for teaching its students to have the utmost self-confidence in all circunstances. Or I guess you could say that they are just insufferable and self-entitled.
That is one way of putting it, I suppose. But there is a lot of nuance there under the surface.
Actually, scratch that. There is a tornado of dilemmas and nuance bleeding into the surface.
For instance, there is the matter of how the British system expects the Prime Minister to have the support of at least slightly over half of the MPs of the House of Commons. Theresa May had a lot of trouble with that and made a couple of miscalculations that cost her dearly. Boris Johnson is not faring all that better; Theresa had to make a much criticized alliance with UKIP to establish a flimsy majority, while Boris actually repelled over twenty MPs from his own party and now has no majority to speak of even when he is on the good side of UKIP.
That is one reason why he pressured for a new General Election; he is hoping for the end results to bring him more support in the House of Commons. Frankly, he is not quite wrong; there is very little that he can achieve without a working majority in the House.
All the same, it is a very risky move, for him and for many others, including many of his rivals and opponents. The December 9 elections may change very little, or they may shift the balance of power in any of several significant ways.
I don't know about that, personally. But I am certainly surprised by how chaotic things have been there. There seem to be a lot of reality checks ahead.
True, but it's not Britain as a whole that called for Brexit or that's been dithering since the referendum. That really has been mostly England (and Wales to a degree).
Here's a fun idea.
Northern Ireland and Scotland each hold a referendum.
Stay in GB
Stay in EU
I doubt that it's an original idea. But it sounds fun.
To me, from the safe side of the pond.
Tom
Full disclosure. I voted No on the poll. I believe that Brexit will create huge business opportunities for USA interests.
Just do it.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Most mainstream politicians tend to put the welfare of their party above the welfare of their country.
This is why the Tories are refusing to work with the Brexit Party. That is the only way that the UK can achieve a clean break from the EU. Mrs Mays surrender treaty, no matter how it is dressed up, is not the answer. Far from it.
Notanumber
A Free Man
It would be the democratic thing to do.
The Mother of all Parliaments needs to regain some respect PDQ.
Augustus
…
He can't leave because Britain has a functioning parliamentary democracy
You are not serious, or you are not thinking this through, or you are deluded to a truly remarkable level.
That did not stop May. What is stopping Boris Johnson?
Augustus
…
Notanumber
A Free Man
Some of us still value democracy.
You used the word "leave" without capitalization. I thought you asked about stepping down. Which he should.
You have some nerve to say that while being a Leaver.
Unless you are supporting the People's Vote. Are you?
I'd like to know what's so undemocratic about enjoying one's right to a vote in a democratic election.
I'm sick of being demonised for being a leaver. All I want is more local government and not be part of what I see as a financially failing, undemocratic union. If anyone can tell me why that's as terrible as everyone is making out and undemocratic, I'd love to know.
Proponents of the People's Vote such as me also want to know that.
But I take it that you mean the 2016 vote. That one was non-binding, completely lacking in necessary technical parameters and arguably illegal, among other reasons because it endangers the GFA.
It was not undemocratic to participate on it. It is however fabulously undemocratic, and IMO also irresponsible, to take it as binding, though, and even more so to oppose the People's Vote.
While I sympathise to a degree, that is literally what you are asking to be crystalized as the new status quo by demanding Brexit as soon as possible.
Or do you expect or hope that somehow Brexit would diminish the divisions somehow? That is, at the most optimistic, a very long shot. I do not expect that to ever happen.
Bitter as I must assume it would be for the remaining Leavers, true inner peace among the British people over Brexit can only happen after a whole lot more bitterness is expressed, or after abandoning the idea altogether and discussing it seriously for a good chunk more years.
There is a YouTube channel that I can recommend you. I have linked to it a few times. "A Different Bias".
The Government thought it is and have pledged to honour the result. You may disagree with the British voters, but unless you want to call the government wrong, you're, well, wrong. The referendum may have been non-binding, but the British Government has now bound it to themselves, so it's binding.
Also, illegal? Are you having some sort of joke? The Conservative Party pledged to have that very referendum if elected. They were elected. The one time a party does what it said it will do and you're saying it's illegal?
Last edited:
Augustus
…
The elected government made a manifesto pledge to enact the result of the referendum. While in a technical sense it was non-binding, the referendum was held with a promise by the government that they would enact the result.
In the next election, the elected government also made a manifesto pledge to honour the result of the referendum. The opposition (Labour) also made a manifesto pledge to honour the result of the referendum.
If the Conservatives win the next election it will be the 4th time there has been a 'people's vote' on having a referendum that's result would be enacted, Leave/Remain, or honouring the result.
Do you generally think it 'fabulously undemocratic' for parties to fulfil their manifesto pledges, or just in this case?
Out of interest, if the referendum had been for Remain and both major parties had a manifesto pledge to respect the result, would you have advocated a 'People's Vote' 2nd referendum?
I am not sure of what you expect me to make of that. Governments are not known for generally being wise, reliable or honourable, are they?
Many people seem to think that David Cameron expected Remain to win the 2016 vote, and he did renounce as PM shortly after, presumably because he did not want to be ahead of enforcing Leave.
Theresa May tried, and faced upfront the deep contradictions of the concept even in the abstract. Her own MPs were deeply divided over her own deal.
Boris Johnson is treating the whole matter in a, shall we say, less than fully serious manner. And don't get me started on the Brexit Party.
All in all, it seems to me that there is a lot of reluctance to admit that Brexit is a bad idea and can't be responsibly and democratically executed, but that is what the reality is if evidence is any indication.
With the 52% of the 2016 vote? I certainly do.
I would I hesitate to call the government wrong? Why would anyone?
It is politically binding, which is what brought you into this impossible situation that has been bleeding the British institutions so bad.
All paths ahead promise a lot of hurt still. The only true choices are among specific shapes and goals for that hurt. None makes Brexit appear a sane nor very democratic proposal.
Yes, I am. Governments and parties are not above nor incapable of commiting illegal acts, and it turns out that a good case can be made, and arguably should be made, that it was illegal to endanger the GFA with the 2016 referendum.
No Deal Brexit is perhaps demonstrably illegal (despite Farage calling it the "only true" Brexit) because it glosses over the GFA and therefore threatens the peace in Ireland, which is an illegal act.
So in others words, no matter what anyone says, British voters, British people, British Government, you think it's wrong and illegal unless it's remain.
OK then.
Only when it is based on lies, manipulation, and a transparent fear of dealing with reality.
No. I take the side of sane proposals.