= Сообщение: 8887 из 12489 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 19 Aug 19 01:01:17 Кому : David Rance 19 Aug 19 01:01:17 Тема : Brexit FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+5d59d8bf На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:203/2+5d594b8a = Кодировка сообщения определена как: UTF-8 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:203/2+5d5a4742 ============================================================================== Hello David,
On Sunday August 18 2019 14:58, you wrote to me:
DR> And therein lies the difficulty. It seems to be generally agreed that, DR> because we weren't given the full facts of a Brexit and a not DR> inconsiderable number of lies, then to make us abide by that decision DR> is showing an inflexibility which denies any repair of the damage DR> done. One could say that the outcome was engineered from the start to DR> produce a result that suited the minority simply by muddling facts DR> with lies in a populist way that would be sure to appeal to a DR> majority. In the event the majority wasn't large so it nearly didn't DR> come off, but I believe that it wasn't representative of what the DR> British people really wanted.
1) We get contradicting reports. Some say that that public opinion has turned and the majority of the UKians is now in favour of "remain". Other reports say that the majority is still in favour of "leave", with or without a deal.
2) Feeding the voters misinformation and lies does not make a vote invalid. One could argue that attempting to influence the voters by telling them just the influencer's version of the story is part of the game. In a functioning democracy the free press has a role in debunking false information and showing the other side. In the end it is still the voter's choice to believe or not to believe what he/she is told and to make his/her choice based on his/her beliefs.
3) Some would argue that those who claim the referendum does not represent the true will of the people and another referendum should be held, are just unable to accept a democratic decision...
DR> This smacks more of a dictatorship than a democracy.
Pardon my French, but this is baloney. The one calling for the referendum was democratically elected. Nobody put a gun to the people's head and told them to vote for "leave".
Like you, I believe the people of the Uk made a wrong decision. But the people making a decison that you or I believe to be wrong is part of democracy. Dictatorship is when people are NOt allowed to make "wrong" decisions.
MvdV>> I see the smiley, but just like replacing TM by BJ did not MvdV>> magically make the problems go away, removig BJ from ths scene MvdV>> will not make themn go away either.
DR> You have trotted that out more than once but no-one here has ever said DR> or thought that it would. Therefore it's irrelevant. You have ignored DR> what I said to get us out of this impasse, but I won't repeat it DR> otherwise we shall be going round in circles for ever.
A new referendum will not get you out if the impasse. It is too late for that now. If I get it right this is the time table.
In case of a vote of no confidence the government has two weeks to convince the house to make a new agreement. If no agreement, there is another five weeks for candiates to prepare and campaign.
The House of commons returns from Holiday on 3 September. Suppose they hold a vote of no confidence on 4 September. Suppose that vote gets a majority (which remains to be seen). Parliament will be disbanded on 20 Septenber. Tradition has it that voting is on Thursday. First Thursday after five weeks is 31 October.
So there you have it. No way that a new government can be installed and hold a referendum before Brexit day.
I didn't make those rules, I just tell it how I see it. Correct me if I am wrong.
Which raises the question: If the people of the UK really wanted a new referendum why did they not act before it was too late? An oppotunity would heva been when Theresa May called for an election.
MvdV>> Keep in mind that if BJ is shoved aside and the UK continues to MvdV>> not make a choice, the "someone else will choose for them" MvdV>> might be taken to a higher level. The EU may make the choice by MvdV>> denying a request for another delay after 31 October.
DR> Fair enough! It's what we deserve! :-(
Your words, not mine. But I think it is a realistic scenario that the 27 will not unanimously agree on yet another extension. The UK has had three years to come with a plan and three times a delay has been granted. It takes just 1 out of those 27 to say "enough is enough, let's get over it and move on" and that's it.
MvdV>> [advocate of devil mode]
MvdV>> How about this: You say the referendum should have required a MvdV>> 2/3 majority to change the status quo. Now what if the MvdV>> Brexiteers say: "you are right, changing the status quo should MvdV>> require a 2/3 majority. We will not repeat that mistake. The MvdV>> new referedum will require a 2/3 majoriy in favour of remain in MvdV>> order to overturn the 2016 referendum".
MvdV>> [/advocate of devil mode]
DR> No! A two thirds majority should be to *change* the status quo!
[advocate of devil mode]
The status quo is that the UK has decided to leave. Has been the status quo for over three years. Reversing that decision is changing the status quo.
