Only to those who value the EU (disclaimer: in it's current form and direction). To those who want out, it's a worthwhile compromise.Any rehashed deal will be worse then staying in the eu.
And those Scottish civilians must just go along with what those Scottish MP's decide and not have their voice of opposition heard?
Nah, just wait until the next GE where you can vote them out... still doesn't change the fact that Scotland would have left the UK union by that point, against the will of many of it's citizens.
A referendum asking to pick the team means nothing. The decision still lies with the manager, doesn't it. Referendums aren't legally binding unless decided. This one wasn;t either. This chaos has come about the Tories enacting the ref decision as "policy" without knowing what to do. It's not the referendum that caused the issue.
Open question for remainers;
Since you seem to know what would constitute the UK leaving the EU would entail, would you all mind posting, the exact minimum, of what conditions that would be, that would technically honour the concept of leaving the European Union (what would end, what institutions would cease etc)?
Thanks.
But when the compromisers outnumber the extremists...
We need remainer extremists to start backing EFTA as well. They're just as instrumental in prolonguing the chaos as the ERG.
If Cameron didn't he knew he'd haemorrhage more votes to UKIP, which would cost him future (the then upcoming) elections. He knew Labour weren't offering to hold one, but they were losing their own votes too. What a chance to grab Labour votes off Labour by offering a referendum!If you have PR, the majority of Scottish voters would have to vote for secessionists for Scotland to secede.
Similarly, if you had PR, the majority of UK voters would have to vote to leave the EU (hopefully on the basis of some sort of plan put forward at the election) to get Brexit.
It's an indirect way of doing it, but in my view a much better way. I simply disagree with referenda in principle. (You don't have to concur by the way.) Cameron made a massive blunder offering one, and only did so because he thought he knew the answer he would get. He was wrong. And no one serious did any planning to prepare for a "Leave" outcome, because no one serious expected it to happen. I doubt (very much) that even Boris Johnson expected to get "Leave" or that he gave a single thought to how he would implement it if he did win. He was playing a game. And (in my view) he still is. And it's all about him. He's laughing either way, because a) he's loaded and b) he will now get a fat pension and Police protection for life. Please don't tell me this is any way to run a country. It's a massive clusterfuck, and there is now no happy ending, no matter what happens as a large proportion of the population are going to be seriously pissed off, Brexit or no Brexit.
So what aspects of not being a member would cease and what would continue?Not being members of the European Union. For example Norway is not a member. Germany is a member.
The end.
Just need a majority of 1Who would that be?
The ERG have got Johnson round the bollocks so I doubt that.
Just need a majority of 1
we need an election then don't we.They’re the tail that wags the dog in the Tory and as we’ve seen evidenced, Johnson would rather push out moderates, who he will actually agree with, than them.
Not being a member means not having representation on the commission, council and Parliament full stop.So what aspects of not being a member would cease and what would continue?
Norway is not in the Customs Union, for example.
And we're free to trade outside of EU members/partners.Not being a member means not having representation on the commission, council and Parliament full stop.
Everything else could potentially be the same. EEA, Customs Union, Euratom, EASA, ECHR etc etc. The only difference would be we’d have no direct say in creating the rules and regulations or setting the budgets. This would meet the outcome of the referendum just as much as leaving with No Deal.
As we are now.And we're free to trade outside of EU members/partners.
So we're free to do a trade deal with the United States, independent of the EU?As we are now.
So we're free to do a trade deal with the United States, independent of the EU?
So what aspects of not being a member would cease and what would continue?
Norway is not in the Customs Union, for example.
So why have the majority of our MP's not voted in favour of it, if that's all there is to it?EU membership is governed by Treaty. The WA lapses that Treaty and ends our membership. That is it. There is nothing else.
No, but we trade with them which was the point you made.So we're free to do a trade deal with the United States, independent of the EU?
No no no, trade and form unique partnerships independent of the EU. That's what i've been saying all along; it gets awkward typing it out every goddamn time.No, but we trade with them which was the point you made.
I think I’ve answered in my edit.No no no, trade and form unique partnerships independent of the EU. That's what i've been saying all along; it gets awkward typing it out every goddamn time.
Are we free to form, say a union with NAFTA for example and continue to trade with Europe, independently, as a member of the EU?
Because the larger party has the biggest say. If we were a small farm trying to sell to Tesco’s, it would be Tesco’s dictating the terms. By ourselves we’re the small farm trying to sell to Tesco’s. As part of the EU, our small farm is in an alliance with lots of others and would get a much better deal.No no no, trade and form unique partnerships independent of the EU. That's what i've been saying all along; it gets awkward typing it out every goddamn time.
Are we free to form, say a union with NAFTA for example and continue to trade with Europe, independently, as a member of the EU?
edit: Why would we get shat on negotiating on our own?