Supposedly, Parliament next week will look to push through a bill that cancels Article 50 if no deal is reached. Basically, it would effectively put no-deal off the table. Not sure what kind of support it has, but it seems to cross party lines. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...siness-leaders-no-deal-brexit-will-be-stopped From a separate Guardian live-blog, this is what the guy told the business community in a conference call: Here is an extract from what Hammond said: Everyone on the call will be aware that a bill has been tabled today and amendments will be tabled on Monday by backbenchers from across the House which would have the effect of removing the threat of no deal. I can simply as a parliamentarian say it is clear to me there is a large majority in the Commons that is opposed to no deal in any circumstances ... I can only emphasise what I have already said. This is a backbench initiative but it’s backed by some very senior parliamentarians. It will as I understand it run its parliamentary course over the next 10 days or so. By the end of next week we will have a clearer view ... My understanding is that because the bill being brought forward will simply and solely rescind the article 50 notice, the legal opinion that they have is that that will meet the test that the European court of justice has laid down for unilateral recision of an article 50 notice. It is not within their power to mandate any future course of action, that would be for a government to do. Their process simply and their bill simply withdraws the article 50 notice.
A modern democracy requires specific laws and rules to function, I hope we can all agree on this? The UK's democracy like most countries has also laws and rules that have different roles for referendums and elections. This referedum from the beginning it was conceived had also a specific role and that was ADVISORY. Furthermore like any respected modern democracy it has strict laws to protect any voting process. People aren't allowed to fake votes, ballots can't be stollen and replaced etc. One of the laws put a strict limit to how the campaign was to be financed. One side broke these laws. Furthermore the UK has about 49 million electorate. Out of it about 33 million voted in this referendum. However 3 whole million adult british citizens who were tax payers and lawful, were denied voting rights. All these 3 million adult citizens most of whom have families, were the ones to be most affected and you can bet your life they would go to vote if they were given the right to. So already 1/10 people who were going to vote were excluded. Right now May's government has been sending them letters that they have to give up their british citizenship if they want to keep their jobs and lifes. So much for respecting democracy.
Since there is no deal to be had that will pass the UK parliament AND be ratified unanimously by ALL 27 countries in the EU, that would mean voting for no Brexit. And everyone there who is paying attention knows it. They will not be able to plead ignorance.
I don't think there is much chance at this point for an ammendment outright revoking article 50 will pass. Revoking article 50 means revoking Brexit and that's for good they won't be allowed to take it back as a stalling negotiating tactic. Perhaps what he meant is postponing article 50. This however won't automatically meet the european court of justice test, it wiil still require for the EU27 to agree. (Which at this point it's a given). Anyway this as I said, is proof that there's cross party collaboration that no deal brexit won't happen. May can say all she wants but not only she doesn't have much power left but her days are numbered with the way she has been acting. She is in denial of reality. She still tries to blackmail the parliament to agree with her deal.
So....you're still misunderstanding what I said thinking that I was conflating the purpose of different democratic votes? That's not a good place to start, but I'll keep going. Again, what is alleged is a relatively minor infraction in the large scheme of things, you simply can't think that a campaign finance violation is equivalent to faking votes, stealing votes, or replacing votes....that's just nonsense rhetoric because you are afraid about what the vote will mean for you. If we went around throwing out votes over every possible violation, we'd never get anywhere. Again, we always hear this kind of BS from those who end up on the losing side of a vote be it an election or a referendum....there's nothing new about it and that whiny nonesese should rightfully be ignored.....and to put it plainly, you wouldn't care about that kind of whining if the vote had turned out with a different result even if "remain" won by 1 vote.
I don't disagree I just laugh. I mean I get that someone who has limited knowledge seeing May's VAST incompetence and stuborness would perhaps invite themselves to far fetched paranoid conspiracy theories.. Anyone who has been following the situation is aware that May is an adamant Brexiter.
Then it’s good time for a second referendum. Does the U.K. want a no deal brexit after the Brexiters campaigned on how easy the transition will be. When you barely pass a vague referendum, a second one is in order now that we have more information. Delay the vote so cooler and more rational heads will prevail.
Ah so according to you it is alright to ignore breaking of the laws as well as the destruction of 1/20 of the british citizens lives. Then also according to me it is alright to ignore an advisory illegaly conducted referendum.
Oh there are. There's Farrage who is touring the devastated towns of norther England with his bus, giving sold out speeches. And by sold out I mean at most 1000 old people are showing up. He also said that he's not afraid of a second referedum because they will again with a bigger margin. Then there are the likes of Riggs- Moggs a super rich elitist who has been campaigning for no deal Brexit so that he can turn the UK in a tax haven for his super rich friends. He doesn't seem so confident.
You do understand that there is a difference between ignoring lawbreaking and using those infractions as an excuse to throw out a vote that you don't like the result of right? I know you are afraid for the EU right now, that is clear with every post you make on the subject, and I get it.....but you aren't making convincing arguments.
Nope I don't see a difference. An illegal voting process should be ignored. Otherwise when there is the limit to law breaking. Who will determine it , you? It's alriight to break the law of financing but it's not alright to cast double votes? The law is clear. Rules are rules. That's why there are laws so there won't be vague interpretations to fit someone's intentions. The one who seems afraid of the EU right now is you to be honest.
LOL of course you don't, and that's where the conversation will end, you are simply incapable of impartiality when it comes to this issue due to your conflict of interest.
As an American, it seems strange to me that this decision was left to voters, directly. In a republic, you typically elect leaders to make these sorts of decisions. It's akin (though clearly not exactly alike) to asking American to vote on whether we should or shouldn't have NAFTA, directly. So strange to me.
The whole thing is pretty strange. The one-and-only-one-referendum camp seems to be arguing that voters should have the absolute right to directly decide whether to be or not be in the EU without knowing any details, but then should have no more input in the terms under which they are OK with leaving.
We, Crazy Americans, do have state propositions, which bypass our elected representatives. So there is is that.
Right? It's just odd. The mechanics of this are so strange to me. I met a guy from London at a bar recently and we talked about Houston, sports, and eventually Brexit came up. I mentioned to him this was hard for me to understand voters being asked to make that sort of decision directly, and he said something similar to what you just said...that the yes or no decision resulting in a yes came with so many contingencies that they couldn't even begin to contemplate as voters when they voted yes.
Oh for sure...we just don't have them where we're speaking directly into foreign policy and trade agreements. One general idea of a republic is that "i don't have the time or the experience to make that kind of decision, directly...so we turn that over to people we vote for in hopes that they will make the right decision." I'm not really commenting on it being good or bad...though i prefer the republic model, personally....just that it seems so wildly different to me than what I understand.
If you ask Israelis if they want a peace deal with Palestinians they are overwhelmingly in favor of it. When you ask about specific deals that involve specific Israeli concessions, the numbers flip flop. I'm guessing the same effect is at work here. People are in favor of standing alone in the abstract, but when you detail what that actually means, it doesn't sound quite as good. They were misdirected by the vote like a golden retriever chasing after a tennis ball that their owner palmed and pretended to throw. As far as no deal Brexit, I'm reminded of all the people who thought the way out of the MBS-led bank crisis or the auto industry crisis was to let half the banks in in the country or General Motors fail.
