5 ms·

Yes, the current government does not have a majority, but this was due to internal strife caused by the leaver/remainer dynamic within the halls of power. Fair

Yes, the current government does not have a majority, but this was due to internal strife caused by the leaver/remainer dynamic within the halls of power. Fair enough, the UK government is rotten to the core and the lot deserve to be thrown out and strung up. But they won't be, because the UK population is frustrated, but misinformed and distracted. The problem with your argument is this; Brexit was not a vote on the corrupt local government, it was a vote on the corrupt EU government, and changing the focus on this matter doesn't change that. The fact that a 80% remain parliment is supposed to represent a 52% leave population is ridiculous. The fact that the supreme court were permitted to make walking away from the negotiation table illegal, thereby making it not a negotiation but a discussion of the UK's servitude from this point onward, is a disgrace. If you cannot walk away from a negotiation, you're not negotiating. Your discussing the terms of your slavery. The task of getting the UK out of the EU in any kind of positive way is now utterly impossible. So I'm afraid this is a remainer vs a leaver problem, because the majority of the population ("leavers") are not represented by the majority of the government ("remainers"). That is the problem with British democracy, not the steps taken by PM Johnson to put in to affect a desicion made by the people in the referendum!

gutnor 7y ago
> The fact that a 80% remain parliment is supposed to represent a 52% leave population is ridiculous. Come on now. 544/650 MP ran for a party that had Leave as a Manifesto promise in the 2017 GE. Yes individual MP could disagree with their party and defy the whip, but that is an overwhelming cross-party majority in favour of leaving. In comparison, no party ran with a "Remain" outright manifesto, rather with a "Let run the deal against Remain" in a confirmation referendum. Only in the last weeks, Labour has sided with the confirmation referendum, and rejected last week to campaign for remain in that referendum. > The fact that the supreme court were permitted to make walking away from the negotiation table illegal That's nonsense. The supreme judged the suspension of Parliament by the PM illegal. It is loosely related to No Deal. > thereby making it not a negotiation but a discussion of the UK's servitude from this point onward, is a disgrace. > Your discussing the terms of your slavery. That's appeal to emotion territory here. International negotiation like leaving the EU do not have the information asymmetry where leaving the table is a real asset. As advanced economies, the threat of instability or uncertainty is enough to keep both the EU and UK in search of a win-win agreement. In addition, the UK is an important contributor to the EU budget and the USA would only too happy to step in, so it is clearly in a position of strenght ... relative to its geopolical and economic size. A good deal is achievable, just not the cakist deal that was promised.
pjc50 7y ago
> supreme court were permitted to make walking away from the negotiation table illegal, No, Parliament made this happen. The Supreme Court has not ruled that no deal is illegal. The most recent ruling was that proroguing Parliament simply to stop it acting was unlawful. You've been misled by the rightwing fake news sources again. Parliament isn't "80% remain" either, even the Labour party haven't officially given up on the idea of "Lexit" yet. The cost of "walking away" is huge. That's what the discussion has been about. The UK could walk away from its obligations and put a fence across Ireland. Or not do so and turn NI into a VAT fraud centre. It would just be a colossally stupid and negative thing to do. At every stage Brexiters assume we could walk away from "them". Brexiteers have never thought about what might happen if they walked away from us and put the barriers back up.

gutnor 7y ago

> The fact that a 80% remain parliment is supposed to represent a 52% leave population is ridiculous. Come on now. 544/650 MP ran for a party that had Leave as a Manifesto promise in the 2017 GE. Yes individual MP could disagree with their party and defy the whip, but that is an overwhelming cross-party majority in favour of leaving. In comparison, no party ran with a "Remain" outright manifesto, rather with a "Let run the deal against Remain" in a confirmation referendum. Only in the last weeks, Labour has sided with the confirmation referendum, and rejected last week to campaign for remain in that referendum. > The fact that the supreme court were permitted to make walking away from the negotiation table illegal That's nonsense. The supreme judged the suspension of Parliament by the PM illegal. It is loosely related to No Deal. > thereby making it not a negotiation but a discussion of the UK's servitude from this point onward, is a disgrace. > Your discussing the terms of your slavery. That's appeal to emotion territory here. International negotiation like leaving the EU do not have the information asymmetry where leaving the table is a real asset. As advanced economies, the threat of instability or uncertainty is enough to keep both the EU and UK in search of a win-win agreement. In addition, the UK is an important contributor to the EU budget and the USA would only too happy to step in, so it is clearly in a position of strenght ... relative to its geopolical and economic size. A good deal is achievable, just not the cakist deal that was promised.

pjc50 7y ago

> supreme court were permitted to make walking away from the negotiation table illegal, No, Parliament made this happen. The Supreme Court has not ruled that no deal is illegal. The most recent ruling was that proroguing Parliament simply to stop it acting was unlawful. You've been misled by the rightwing fake news sources again. Parliament isn't "80% remain" either, even the Labour party haven't officially given up on the idea of "Lexit" yet. The cost of "walking away" is huge. That's what the discussion has been about. The UK could walk away from its obligations and put a fence across Ireland. Or not do so and turn NI into a VAT fraud centre. It would just be a colossally stupid and negative thing to do. At every stage Brexiters assume we could walk away from "them". Brexiteers have never thought about what might happen if they walked away from us and put the barriers back up.