Parliament is debating 4 versions of remain on the first April 2019, surely this a a joke.
Two are designed to remain completely, the other two are essentially our Parliament debating the future relationship on behalf of the EU despite them having rejected the Withdrawal Agreement which is required before we move forward.
Staggering, I hope the EU have had enough and throw us out after the 12th April!!
Following the referendum which conclusively was to leave.. You can argue however suits your agenda, but Government put the choice to the people, one person, one vote so more Democratic than any Election and more people voted than in any event in history.
Having voted leave, the government should have appointed a cross party commission, including all UK regions and business, tasked with producing a consensual plan to deliver Brexit before triggering Àrticle 50. This would have allowed government to get on with running the country.
Once we had a consensus, and the country behind it, we should have triggered Article 50, and as a country resisted any attempt form the EU to dictate the procedure, importantly refusing to split the procedure as the divorce bill, withdrawal agreement and future relationship are by definition intrinsically linked!!
As a result, we would now be leaving on the 29th March 2019 with an agreement as to how we leave.
Compare that with our reality.. The EU have dictated the terms, our government has politicised the process, ensuring parliament is split, and we are not voting on the meaningful vote on the relationship, but only on agreeing the withdrawal agreement, with the future relationship still to be discussed.
What a failure, which is likely to result in a remain parliament suggesting the people need another say. If this includes the government's poor negotiation or remain, then it is a remain option and Democracy officially dies. I and many others will no longer have any faith in the Democratic process.
Bear witness and stand judged..
To rate an article on Breitbart is quite an achievement..
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/20/lane-when-brexit-defector-wollaston-criticises-blukip-shes-really-just-hating-her-own-constituents/
Way to go Dr Sarah Wollaston..
How are politicians more concerned about a holiday they booked
Seriously, it was clear months ago that their incompetence was leading to a no deal no-one wants. No one in business with half a brain cell would have booked a holiday until after this was sorted.
So, Parliament voted against extending article 50.
So, Parliament voted for going back to the EU to renegotiate the backstop.
Both votes were 48/52%
How ironic, there are many that say 48/52% was not sufficient for the public to be taken seriously.
I feel so disenfranchised.
I voted leave. Before the vote my MP, Sarah Wolleston said she would vote leave, then changed her mind and voted remain.
Leave won, and given by nearly every measure possible won it was time to respect the electorate.
I took the time to email the government suggesting that the vote be respected by building support cross party and business, but the government decided to make it political.. How is that working out?
So, Dr 'I know best' Wolleston says I did not know what I was voting for. Given I am 46 and wanted to vote out since I was 18 (voting labour when Blair offered a referendum) that is a lie, and she has confirmed that she will reject the flawed deal in support of a repeat of the referendum.
Just what the EU wanted all along. Way to sell out your country.
Why should I vote again??
I had a good chat with a friend today.
He voted remain, largely because he owns a house in France and it suits him to be in the EU.
Essentially, he accepts the leave vote and like me is appalled that the politicians are making such a hash of it.
Given a second vote, he is wavering and a leave vote is not a given.
So, for those wanting a second referendum to nullify the first, what happens if leave happens again?
..Blogging that is.
People with a much bigger presence than me vocalise what I think so much better.
I will be back when I have something original to offer.
My MP Dr Sarah Wolleston originally came out for leave, she then said she wanted to stay. After the vote she wanted an EEA agreement (remarkably what the country were sold in a referendum regarding joining)
Now she says that the public did not know what they were voting for and we need a people's vote. This is code for staying in as everyone who suggests a people's vote calls for remain to be on the ballot and two leave choices, thereby splitting the leave vote and ensuring remain wins.
Dr Sarah Wolleston enjoys using a medical analogy to explain why the people, her voters were stupid and need to be asked again.
http://www.drsarah.org.uk/sarah's-blog/informed-consent-is-essential-before-brexit-surgery/2825
I would like to offer my own version.
Imagine you knew something was wrong in your body and so went to the experts for advice. You are then told something is not right and you have two choices. You can either do nothing in which case the problem will continue to develop with an unknown ending, or you can have surgery the effect of which is unknown.
So, you decide despite the risks to have the surgery and at that point you leave the details to the experts having given them consent to act collectively on your behalf and undertake the procedure.
Now, imagine your surprise when you are woken up on the operating table to be told that not only is the surgeon so incompetent they do not know what they are doing, but the medical team cannot agree on what surgery to undertake.
As a result, they want you to decide again, do you really want to have the surgery now you know they are incapable, or do you want to decide to not have the surgery which would be easier for the medical team, but leave you with the disease and an uncertain future you cannot control.
