Is to launch supreme court challenge to stop no deal Brexit. A couple of things, given the supreme court is in recess, is there enough time, and who funds this, is she absoloutely loaded?
Unfortunately what people outside leafy bit s of London have been feeling for some time
one of the lollersome things about brexit is how so many brexters think that because approximately 26.952% of the population in 2016 voted in favour of some sort of brexit, that somehow entitles them to unquestionably declare the feelings of every single person in the uk outside leafy parts of london
??? - so the answer is “judges = enemy of the people”, “lock [string] ‘em up, it’s the only thing they understand”, “I’ll create jobs by building prisons”? I quite understand your views. Unfortunately they belong in the 1950s or perhaps to Alf Garnett (perhaps you didn’t get that was a joke?).
I don’t disagree with concern that the metropolitan governments we have had have politely ignored many communities (going back at least to Thatcher). And it’s abundantly clear that Corbyn has no idea whatsoever how to help them or even what their concerns are and isn’t terribly bothered if he’s honest as long as that nice Seumas tells him what to do and think and he gets to spend as much time as he likes with his marrows.
I do disagree that manipulating justifiable grievances to support the delivery of hard right “medicine” is in any way a good idea. Even for the hard right it’s myopic.
I also find the idea that a supposedly (liberal) conservative PM could contemplate simply ignoring a confidence vote and clinging on to see through the most extreme possible version of a project he started purely to become PM regardless of the obvious truth that it’s the most monumental pile of w**k in decades pretty nauseating.
I don’t expect to persuade you, like; what would be the point of persuading a cretin or a lunatic?
If I'd written "Unfortunately what all of the people outside leafy bit s of London " you might have had a straw man.
m7, whether u want to play word games or not on “all people” vs “[some] people”, does not alter the fact that u r still purporting to speak for the feelings of people on a massive scale
and now deliberately avoiding the substance of my point, by hypocritically accusing me of straw manning
I live outside a leafy bit of London as it happens. In a largely UKIP/Brexit voting area with a largely indigenous white working and non-working class population (most of whom elect an unapologetic fascist to Westminster, some of whom are probably irritated former Labour voters).
There are, of course, commuters who are broadly liberal and Europhile. In their way, they are much more of a threat to the local population than “forriners”.
the millions of brits outside london* who voted remain and yet r disparagingly lumped into the “metropolitan elite” box as if they r not entitled to independent thought outside london
*other than mancunians. i never feel sorry for mancunians, proud patriotic remoaners or otherwise
Specifically, I feel for the guy who was clearly unionized (not a Len McCluskey Union either) who was chatting in the pub garden about the positives of Remain in May 2016. Corbyn’s crew don’t give a toss about him or his job and BJ certainly doesn’t.
And he trusted them with his livelihood and future and tried to persuade his floating Leaver mates it was really a fooking terrible idea.
Maybe I’m a patronizing, hand-wringing liberal. But f*ck me it’s depressing right now.
Some cities outside the South East were more heavily remain than London. This London v rest of the country thing is total myth. The London brexiteers who accuse remainers of never venturing outside metropolitan London circles clearly do not do so themselves or they would realise the picture is far more complex than they portray.
I think the UK should have a second referendum, but it should not ask the same question. Instead, it should ask how we ought to proceed now we know a little more of the potential (realistic) options. I would propose an ‘Alternative Vote’ style referendum, whereby the public is asked how we should proceed, with options including:
1. May's deal
2. No deal
3. Single Market (Efta)
4. Customs Union
5. Remain.
There is only one vote, and people would rank their preferences from 1-5 (i.e 1 for their favourite and 5 for their least). The eliminations are worked on people's preferences. If any option receives 50%+ of the vote, then that's the way we proceed. If it doesn't, the lowest ranking option is eliminated and the people who voted for it have their second preferences redistributed. If no majority is found again, then the same process applies with the remaining options (and so on until an option reaches 50%+).
This method does not ignore the result of the previous referendum (nor is it a rehash), but rather builds upon it in light of what we now know. They are all options that are actually realistic even if shit (i.e. no deal). It would probably lead to soft brexit if remain doesn't win outright. Thus, it also allows for a democratic means of compromise between leave and remain, which is something sorely needed with regards to this very divisive issue. It would probably also avoid the clusterfook that is no deal.
To completely safeguard against further referendums on the matter, we can make the decision legally binding, as opposed to being advisory like the last one.
As much as I don't like referendums deciding the future on something so complex and important, the first one has already happened now, and this seems like the most democratic and balanced way out of the problem. No one voted for "no deal" (in fact, the "no deal" scenario was framed as "Project Fear" by Brexiteers).
0
0
i have no idea wot this means
0
0
one of the lollersome things about brexit is how so many brexters think that because approximately 26.952% of the population in 2016 voted in favour of some sort of brexit, that somehow entitles them to unquestionably declare the feelings of every single person in the uk outside leafy parts of london
it’s properly mental thought projection
0
0
??? - so the answer is “judges = enemy of the people”, “lock [string] ‘em up, it’s the only thing they understand”, “I’ll create jobs by building prisons”? I quite understand your views. Unfortunately they belong in the 1950s or perhaps to Alf Garnett (perhaps you didn’t get that was a joke?).
I don’t disagree with concern that the metropolitan governments we have had have politely ignored many communities (going back at least to Thatcher). And it’s abundantly clear that Corbyn has no idea whatsoever how to help them or even what their concerns are and isn’t terribly bothered if he’s honest as long as that nice Seumas tells him what to do and think and he gets to spend as much time as he likes with his marrows.
I do disagree that manipulating justifiable grievances to support the delivery of hard right “medicine” is in any way a good idea. Even for the hard right it’s myopic.
I also find the idea that a supposedly (liberal) conservative PM could contemplate simply ignoring a confidence vote and clinging on to see through the most extreme possible version of a project he started purely to become PM regardless of the obvious truth that it’s the most monumental pile of w**k in decades pretty nauseating.
I don’t expect to persuade you, like; what would be the point of persuading a cretin or a lunatic?
0
0
m7, whether u want to play word games or not on “all people” vs “[some] people”, does not alter the fact that u r still purporting to speak for the feelings of people on a massive scale
and now deliberately avoiding the substance of my point, by hypocritically accusing me of straw manning
which is all lollersome at best
0
0
I live outside a leafy bit of London as it happens. In a largely UKIP/Brexit voting area with a largely indigenous white working and non-working class population (most of whom elect an unapologetic fascist to Westminster, some of whom are probably irritated former Labour voters).
There are, of course, commuters who are broadly liberal and Europhile. In their way, they are much more of a threat to the local population than “forriners”.
0
0
those r the ppl I feel sorry for
the millions of brits outside london* who voted remain and yet r disparagingly lumped into the “metropolitan elite” box as if they r not entitled to independent thought outside london
*other than mancunians. i never feel sorry for mancunians, proud patriotic remoaners or otherwise
0
0
Me too, m3. Me too.
0
0
Specifically, I feel for the guy who was clearly unionized (not a Len McCluskey Union either) who was chatting in the pub garden about the positives of Remain in May 2016. Corbyn’s crew don’t give a toss about him or his job and BJ certainly doesn’t.
And he trusted them with his livelihood and future and tried to persuade his floating Leaver mates it was really a fooking terrible idea.
Maybe I’m a patronizing, hand-wringing liberal. But f*ck me it’s depressing right now.
0
0
Jack of hearts come on admit it you are Lady Penelope aren't you AICM €5
0
0
Lady P is Anna, right?
No, I am not Lady P.
You can insert your pretend £5 ubi sol non lucet, mate, and fornicate off whilst doing so.
0
0
Sorry I can understand why you might be offended by the implication
0
0
Some cities outside the South East were more heavily remain than London. This London v rest of the country thing is total myth. The London brexiteers who accuse remainers of never venturing outside metropolitan London circles clearly do not do so themselves or they would realise the picture is far more complex than they portray.
0
0
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. What login fail? I only have one login.
I applaud your commitment to this conspiracy, but honestly, you're talking shite.
0
0
Anna is definitely DawnHandbags.
0
0
Hi Hanners!
0
0
Anna, I saw that login fail but that thread does seem to have mysteriously disappeared now
0
0
Right! It's not just me, is it?
0
0
POLITE REMINDER TO ALL BREXITARDS
she won last time - and you lost
0
0
https://www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/eu-refusal-negotiate-shocking?page=0
A login fail or hotnow is tunning all over another chap's thread. Embarrassing in either circumstance.
0
0
Man that is flimsy evidence that I am SirPitt.
that all you got on me/us?
It don't fit you must acquit
0
0
Ta, Veritas. Much obliged.
0
0
Appropriate username, in the circumstances!
0
0
I think the UK should have a second referendum, but it should not ask the same question. Instead, it should ask how we ought to proceed now we know a little more of the potential (realistic) options. I would propose an ‘Alternative Vote’ style referendum, whereby the public is asked how we should proceed, with options including:
1. May's deal
2. No deal
3. Single Market (Efta)
4. Customs Union
5. Remain.
There is only one vote, and people would rank their preferences from 1-5 (i.e 1 for their favourite and 5 for their least). The eliminations are worked on people's preferences. If any option receives 50%+ of the vote, then that's the way we proceed. If it doesn't, the lowest ranking option is eliminated and the people who voted for it have their second preferences redistributed. If no majority is found again, then the same process applies with the remaining options (and so on until an option reaches 50%+).
This method does not ignore the result of the previous referendum (nor is it a rehash), but rather builds upon it in light of what we now know. They are all options that are actually realistic even if shit (i.e. no deal). It would probably lead to soft brexit if remain doesn't win outright. Thus, it also allows for a democratic means of compromise between leave and remain, which is something sorely needed with regards to this very divisive issue. It would probably also avoid the clusterfook that is no deal.
To completely safeguard against further referendums on the matter, we can make the decision legally binding, as opposed to being advisory like the last one.
As much as I don't like referendums deciding the future on something so complex and important, the first one has already happened now, and this seems like the most democratic and balanced way out of the problem. No one voted for "no deal" (in fact, the "no deal" scenario was framed as "Project Fear" by Brexiteers).
Join the discussion