Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Lammy calls for People's Vote
Possible options are;
* the brexit deal, if there is one
* no deal
* stay in the EU
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45616308
Time needed to ratify, organise and campaign for such a 'vote' would take around 10 months according to constitutional experts so, Article 50/29th March would have to be delayed, if possible.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JHauptman on
-
Firstly, the idea of Brexit voters being homogeneous was never valid. It remains an unhelpful viewpoint.
Secondly, forming a strong opinion around a term that has been inaccurately self-defined ties the bow around the criticism I made previously.Progressive internationalism ≠ Globalisation
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Then you define Progressive internationalism as maybe I've mis-understood it JHauptman
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
For me the bit of the article that hit home most was “I can’t bear to think what a second vote would do to the hearts and hopes of the people who voted for Brexit, who for once trusted the system, who had a democratic outlet for once in their life – only to find that they didn’t”.
UKIP have already stated that they are looking to rebrand themselves as an extreme right populist party, mimicking the political models they have seen gather votes all over Europe. They, and other far right parties, will see a call for a second referendum as a rallying call to suck in large numbers voters who would look at their decision (to vote leave) as not being the “right” one and so dismissed.
Even if a second vote overturned the first one (and I have my doubts about that) my fear is that it would be a catalyst for the growth of far-right populist politics in this country. For those who don’t think that is a possibility just cast your mind back a decade or so when the BNP not only had Council seats but controlled councils. Those kinds parties, and that includes a rebranded UKIP, are ready and waiting as is the money to fund them.
We’re way past the what-if stage. There is simply no point on dwelling on the rights and wrong of the decision to hold a referendum and the lies and distortions thrown around during the campaign. We are where we are and have to find a way of dealing with it.
i agree with some other posters that they way to at least start to sort out this mess is to hold a general election with parties clearly setting out how they intend to respond to the referendum result and to the current state of negotiations with the EU.
-
Permalink Reply by DavidJ on
-
Michael - the problem is how far do you go to appease far right popularism? Isn't that what Cameron effectively did when he committed to a simple referendum on a highly complex issue? That appeasement allowed far right popularism to go mainstream and we are now n a terrible mess.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
There were some completely valid criticisms of the EU and that was what was used to whip up the anti-EU sentiment. Some of it was lies and no appeasement to the electorate should be made over them other than to punish the liars. However the state-aid rules are a massive red-flag to me and what if you want your children to have a really good job with great pensions and benefits? Get them working for the EU.
-
-
"However the state-aid rules are a massive red-flag to me . . . "
The state aid rules are all about trade rules - do you think the EU, or America, China etc etc are just going to say that it is fine if we subsidize our industry and not not stick us with prohibitive tariffs?
I am aware that other places are better at gaming this than the UK appears to be . . . but if we openly subsidize we will not be able to sell anything to anyone anyway.
Agree that there is too much money washing around amongst EU quangos.
-
-
Well, even the UK subsidises the train companies 10s of millions, supposedly run by free enterprise/corporations so as you say everyone is doing this anyway. Especially China and including the US (eg. 12 billion state aid to farmers affected by tariffs in current trade war).
-
-
It bans nationalising privately held industries. There is a supposed get out that when elected you can do anything in your manifesto but nobody has ever tried this.
Want to drink water, wash yourself or flush your toilet? Pay. Madness.
-
-
This has been debunked many times. Did the EU step in to stop the nationalisation of the East Coast recently?
-
-
That was not nationalised! The contract was handed back to the government! Nobody opposed it.
I have never seen it satisfactorily debunked. People always just point to the manifesto promise get out but it needs to be tested in a European Court and that will only happen when the nationalisation is forced and the current private owner objects.
-
-
nationalisation = take under state control.
There are numerous examples of EU states nationalising industries/services. I have yet to see an example of the EU blocking a nationalisation project. Can you point to one?
-
-
-
OK, then, what about a "nationalisation" that someone objects to? They're just taking back the keys from previously privatised and no longer profitable utilities.
Think of it as appealing for LBW, you have to appeal before the umpire will give a decision. All that's happened is nobody has appealed.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
