Because most elections can be undone in relative short time. The consequences aren't usually so large. There is a reason our Constitution is so difficult to change.
Elections can be undone when the next election comes around, but they cannot be ignored. What people are calling for it to ignore a vote because they don't like what the people voted for.
It's funny how all of the Ron Paul libertarian types are just jizzing all over Brexit and the anti-UN, things that really don't affect them personally at all. My girlfriend in the 8th grade wrote a paper on Ayn Rand too.
Are you being intentionally dense here? While there is a semantic difference between an election and a referendum vote, in context the reason I said "election" to mean any situation where there was a democratic vote because I was talking about multiple situations. Also, the UK does not have a constitution so you don't know what you are talking about. The Parliament called for a referendum vote on Brexit and the people voted to leave, you can't simply ignore that because you don't like the vote or no referendum will ever have legitimacy again.
The Guardian newspaper believes that the UK is stuck in a 'Brexit deadlock'. But with 73 days until Brexit, that is advantage to Teresa May and those that support the Leave movement. If the deadlock persists, the UK exits the EU in 73 days with no deal. Theresa May may have lost a couple of battles this week, but they strategic losses that put her in an increasingly strong position to win this war. Theresa May survives vote, but Britain remains in Brexit deadlock Prime minister invites party leaders to discuss alternative deal but sticks to red lines Theresa May has survived as prime minister after weathering a dramatic no-confidence vote in her government, but was left scrambling to strike a Brexit compromise that could secure the backing of parliament. In a statement in Downing Street on Wednesday night, the prime minister exhorted politicians from all parties to “put aside self-interest”, and promised to consult with MPs with “the widest possible range of views” in the coming days. It followed her announcement that she would invite Jeremy Corbyn and other party leaders for immediate talks on how to secure a Brexit deal, something she had declined to do earlier in the day, although Labour later said Corbyn would decline the invitation unless no-deal was taken off the table. If the Guardian and the Remain crowd really believe that Theresa May and her team are "left scrambling to strike a Brexit compromise" at this point, then they really do not have a very good understanding of what is happening here. May has repeatedly stated that there are two choices: 1) Pass the deal that she negotiated with the EU, which was voted down 432-202 (more than 2-1 against), or 2) Exit the EU with no deal. The first option has been eliminated, leaving the UK now with the second option. So now she is inviting everyone to talks about how to proceed, but Jeremy Corbyn, and also the Liberal Democrats are refusing to participate "unless no-deal was taken off of the table". This is another way of saying that they will not participate in talks unless Brexit is taken off of the table. She is not going to do that, nor should she. If they continue to hold out, the clock continues to tick. If they decide to talk, the clock also continues to tick. The leaders of the EU have issued statements indicating that the deal that was negotiated was the best possible deal and it is up to the UK rethink their position and to either get on board with the EU's offer - which was voted down by the UK Parliament 432-202 earlier this week - or, wait for it....just decide to remain in the EU. The arrogance of these people is truly beyond the ability of words to adequately describe. Anyway, Theresa May is winning and Brexit appears to be on track. There are still 73 days to go and plenty could yet go wrong. But I am increasingly optimistic that the UK will exit the EU with no deal on March 29, 2019, right on schedule.
Theresa May is a remainer herself so a lot of this doesn't make sense. I believe she is "scrambling to strike a Brexit compromise" given that she has never wanted to leave the EU. That said, the political reality has changed and she wants to hold on to power, so she's not going to go against Brexit any more than she already has. She's taken a decidedly different tone since her "deal" went down in flames and I expect that to continue. Again, I've said the EU is in a really rough situation, if they give in to the UK, then all of the EU collapses, if they don't give in to the UK and they go with a no deal Brexit....the EU might collapse. It looks like the UK might once again be what prevents Germany from conquering all of Europe.
I think she is looking at this in an entirely different way than you describe. She realizes that her legacy will be Brexit, as in did the UK Leave the EU on her watch in a way that fulfills the Brexit mandate, or not. It is just that simple. Success here will certainly include leaving the EU with no deal. But if the UK permanently postpones leaving, or agrees to a deal that effectively keeps the UK tied to the EU as a vassal state, she has failed. This is her calculation. If I am right, she will fight as hard as she can to lead the UK out of the EU in 73 days, on schedule, with no deal. As there is in fact no plausible deal to be had. The one deal that was plausible, at least from the perspective of the EU, was voted down by the UK Parliament, 432-202. If I am wrong, she will extend the deadline with no clear prospect for a deal that provides the UK with a real Brexit, in spirit and in truth. These are reasonably clear measures of success or failure. As a result, this should be pretty easy to keep an eye on.
I think she was perfectly fine agreeing to a deal that keeps the UK tied to the EU as a vassal, again, she was a remainer....she doesn't believe in the sovereignty of the UK. That said, many in her party do support UK sovereignty so after her deal got shot down the way it did, the only way she was going to hold on to power was to change her tune. When it comes down to it, she'd rather support Brexit than allow for Jeremy Corbyn to rise to power. The notion of an antisemitic socialist as Prime Minister is far worse than the most over the top fear mongering BS coming from the remainers.
I think she knew that deal was going to get shot down. She is doing the best that she can with these negotiations in what is literally an impossible situation. There is no deal that will pass the UK Parliament and that will also be unanimously ratified by the 27 countries of the EU. She knows it and has known it for a long time. Nevertheless, she had to negotiate the best deal she could with the EU and present it to Parliament. She did that. Politically, she had to support this deal because it was her deal that she negotiated, as bad as it was. She did that. It was not a good deal for the UK and they voted it down accordingly. In supporting this bad deal every step of the way and surviving two no confidence motions, she has kept her powder dry to now defend the "no deal" scenario. No deal is not what hardly anyone thought would be the best way to exit for either the EU or the UK. But they cannot agree on a deal, so now it is down to exiting with no deal, or not exiting at all. It is my sense that Theresa May is now going all in to exit with no deal. If I am understanding you correctly, it is your sense that she does not intend to exit at all (or at least not in substance). These are two rather discrete alternatives that are in fact mutually exclusive. If one happens, the other did not. 73 days to go. And in the immortal words of Yogi Berra: "it ain't over till its over".
She certainly does not want to leave the EU at all and IMO she attempted to sabotage the negotiations by intentionally going in weak and putting forth this terrible "deal" that is the kind of thing that only a conquered country might accept. I think her goal was to show up with such a bad plan that everyone would want to just stay in the EU.....but in going that route, she now runs the risk of being ousted and Corbyn taking over....something even worse than a no deal Brexit. So while she'd love nothing more than to stay in the EU, she's been forced into a position of supporting Brexit in order to maintain power.
The difference is that May isnt a president. She isnt a directed elected leader. People didnt go to the ballots with Mays name on it. They voted Torry and they werent even the majority! From what I know the american president has the power of veto and once he is elected theres nothing much to be done to dismiss him. However May is just the leader of the government not even the real leader of her own party. She can be deposed of by any partys motion of no confidence. Right now she cant be dismissed by the Torries though they already tried, but the others can table no confidence motions every other day. And the only reason she survived yesterday is because the DUP gave her their votes. The DUP doesnt want a hard border. If May insists and she doesnt have the dignity to resign then she will be get rid of.
Just because you try to equate elections with referendum it doesnt make it equal. The elections are never advisory. The referendum BY LETTER OF THE LAW was. End of story.
LOL the only way I equated the two was that they were votes as part of a democratic process, not their specific functions. How did you fail to realize that?
Here is a UK board where they have an entire forum related to Brexit. They use a bit of language on this one, so consider yourselves warned. https://arrse.co.uk/community/forums/brexit.218/
U.K. Parliament should delay invoking a no deal brexit. Folks who want to leave regardless of consequences need to settle down.
