He isn't even an MP.
No and about the only MEP anyone has heard of.
He isn't even an MP.
Is it that Birdwatch thing with Michaela Strachan?
Farage will..
There's really no probably about it. With 48% voting to stay in the EU, it's pretty obvious that over 50% would like to keep the trade and free movement.
Would have been handy, but maybe too complicated. Don't forget the leavers are brain dead.
I'm not talking about another ref, I'm talking about the idea that no politician is going to activate article 50
And even then won't have the power to do so...He will be...
Uhm, how?
No he can't.From the BBC website:
"It could either be a letter to the president of the European Council or an official statement at a meeting of the European Council duly noted in the official records of the meeting."
Can Nige do the latter as a MEP?
And even then won't have the power to do so...
How can they have a plan? They were not trying to form a government. The question was whether to stay in or leave. It is up to the incumbent government to sort things out. That was a fact from the word go.One of the Brexit MPs has come out and said they don't have a plan
The point I was making that a General Election would be needed to create a legislative body with members that are directly accountable to the electorate on this major issue and that is best placed to deliver the process. This can best be done by having an election with parties (presumably Conservative and UKIP) running with a manifesto containing specific pledges relating to the Brexit process. Currently most MPS actually opposed Leave. In the case of all local and general elections make pledges and promises and , if elected, can be punished at the ballot box if they fail to deliver or are shown to have mis-sold something. This essential level of democratic accountability does not exist for referendums like this. If the NHS 350m promise turns out to have been a lie, well you bought it; no refunds/no returns. If such promises form part of an election pledge they have more weight.
My point about a party running on a remain ticket was that if this was the case and there was a clear and unambiguous vote in their favour that might be an indication of a change of view or circumstance. I am not quite sure where it would lead but at least it will have been as the result of some democratic process. Personally I think that to be in this situation we would need to have a Labour Party operating as a much more effective unit than they are right now.
On it's own, no, but with free trade, yes. You don't get the free trade without the free movement of labour.I'm not convinced you are right on the free movement. I'm sure the majority of people who voted either way are in favour of visa-free travel throughout the EU and the UK but the unfettered free movement of labour, with the right to healthcare, housing and other benefits is a completely different matter. I would be surprised if there was an absolute majority in favour of that.
Which one should I drop?
How can they have a plan? They were not trying to form a government. The question was whether to stay in or leave. It is up to the incumbent government to sort things out. That was a fact from the word go.
For: despite the overwhelming temptation to say "well, you idiots, you made your bed, you better lie in it", the truth is that it's the rest of us poor sods who have to lie alongside them.
Against: a second referendum and a change of mind would send out a very negative message - the UK would no longer have any credibility in Europe whatsoever, without a doubt we would be told to "sit down and shut up" on the naughty step for a VERY long time. I feel that now the choice has been made, we just need to plough on and try to make the most out of the situation.
A second referendum, and then a third if the right answer isn't obtained, is a very EU-ish scenario. The unelected bureaucrats would have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact, they are probably suggesting it behind the scenes as we speak.