Politics Today

[arthur]

You can't say it, can you?

Tell me what you want me to say and I'll try to say it...

 

[IndoMike]

Don't disagree. Cowardly to call one in the first place.

Even more cowardly to run away after.

 

[arthur]

Nail on head.

The law has to operate in the real world in a sensible way otherwise it loses respect. Once the government undertook in writing and in the plainest terms to implement the result of the referendum it could not reasonably row back on that. The people who read the leaflet were entitled to believe it was honestly written as regard the promise/undertaking to implement the result.

The lawyers, arch remainers et al can spin, finesse and over complicate as much as they like on this but it just does not wash when a common sense approach is taken. We voted to leave. We were promised the decision would be implemented. When it does not happen people get very angry and justifiably so. Keep it simple.

Ah, common sense - the answer to everything. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. " (Einstein)

 

[arthur]

We voted to leave. We were promised the decision would be implemented. When it does not happen people get very angry and justifiably so.

Yes, people get angry and can't understand why we haven't left. So take the time to outline all the different options, their benefits and drawbacks and let the people choose between them. We could convene groups of citizens to work through these issues and then come up with some concrete realistic proposals to choose between. We'd need a term for this process - we could call the citizens groups "Assemblies" and the choice process a "referendum"

 

[Temporarily Exiled]

It's pretty obvious, they are attempting to enact the referendum result in the least damaging way.

For posterity, I'd argue that Nick Boles' 'Common Market 2.0' would've been the least damaging way of delivering Brexit. May's Brexit - no single market, no customs union - is actually what was considered in July 2016 a 'hard Brexit'. The goalposts have moved a lot since then, mind.

The law has to operate in the real world in a sensible way otherwise it loses respect.

The reverse is true. The rule of law must be reckoned as being more authoritative than the word of politicians. Politicians must operate within the realms of fact and in a sensible way or they lose the respect of voters. I think we're seeing that play out to an extent now.

The lawyers, arch remainers et al can spin, finesse and over complicate as much as they like on this but it just does not wash when a common sense approach is taken.

People argue in favour of the law because upholding the rule of law is absolutely integral. Lawyers ask the question: If this law can be ignored / changed without consent of Parliament because it's politically expedient, which others can? I'm not saying that this is necessarily what's happened here, there were votes made post to give effect to the referendum. But to claim that the referendum vote at the time gave a binding mandate is wrong.

 

[Hants_red]

So Johnson is the new PM. With little respect outside of the Tory Party, it's going to be interesting times.

 

[Temporarily Exiled]

With little respect outside of the Tory Party

Not a huge amount more respect inside the party either.

 

[Mr Jinx]

So Johnson is the new PM. With little respect outside of the Tory Party, it's going to be interesting times.

Suck it up Remainers. You brought this on yourselves!

 

[IndoMike]

It was a good acceptance speech. Of course, rhetoric is much easier than action and much easier than implementing policies which will benefit all of the people, young and old, rich and poor, in good health and bad health.

 

[IndoMike]

Suck it up Remainers. You brought this on yourselves!

As a Brit I must wish him well. He now has to prove the doubters wrong and show that he will be a serious, responsible, focused, calm, open-minded PM (and not a b+llsh+tter).