Jump to content

New York Times


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Saying the New York Times is just a newspaper, is like saying the Grand Canyon is:   1. A large hole in the ground 2. David Gest's pet name for the other Liza 3. Not as good as Le Canyon Grande

Rock 'n' Roll Casualty

that's homeland security trolling for terrorists.

As I have been explaining to anyone interested for months now, the constitutional jam over exit is caused by the fact that the referendum, randomly invented by PM Cameron, has no legal force. Parliament is sovereign, members are there to represent their constituents, not the “will of the people,” so you won’t get a Brexit until Parliament agrees; a fact underlined by BJ’s great wheeze of shutting Parliament down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be simpler, not to mention cheaper, to seek out some number of people who supported this idiocy and execute them by order of The Queen before holding another referendum?

 

Referenda are simply an unacceptable form of governance -- and frankly an abdication of leadership -- when it comes to decisions that catastrophically punish one subset of the population for the perceived benefit of a small (or even large) majority. This is exactly why we have parliaments and (for better or worse) why the US senate is constructed as it is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this is true, but the incessant back and forth is what makes it ludicrous. The British have never fully embraced the EU (never accepted the Euro over the Pound, etc...), always felt they were supporting "lazy" nations - their word not mine.

 

At the end someone, somewhere needs to have the courage and insight to make a decision. What makes this "not simple" is the total ineptitude of those seeking to put forward their own agenda.

 

That New Yorker article makes it appear as an impossible situation, which it's not. It's only impossible because the "leaders" can't or won't see the forest for the trees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, if only they had the wisdom of North American leaders who have long ago formed a single federation, redrew and reduced the number of historical subdivisions ("states"), and allowed free immigration to fill up their giant swaths of empty land. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this is true, but the incessant back and forth is what makes it ludicrous. The British have never fully embraced the EU (never accepted the Euro over the Pound, etc...), always felt they were supporting "lazy" nations - their word not mine.

 

At the end someone, somewhere needs to have the courage and insight to make a decision. What makes this "not simple" is the total ineptitude of those seeking to put forward their own agenda.

 

That New Yorker article makes it appear as an impossible situation, which it's not. It's only impossible because the "leaders" can't or won't see the forest for the trees.

Denmark seems able to do this without any undo angst.

 

The problem is that David Cameron unwisely called for that referendum, and given the Irish border there’s no intelligent politically acceptable way to effectuate the result.

 

(Also the vision of post-EU Britain held by the faction whose propaganda caused that result is truly odious— and not what the Leavers were led to believe they were voting for.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...