fokker wrote:Without agreement of parliament for one of options, the only responsible option left is to revoke article 50. No politician should lead the UK into hard brexit with such divided parliament. After that new elections need to be held, brexit deal needs to be renegotiated and possibly new referendum held. Revoking article 50 should be the last May's action before stepping down.
Nonsense -
...no thanks.
There's a 'blame-game' going at the moment, they must be in preparation for the final betrayal.
Theresa MAY is the architect of her predicament.
She agreed the WA with Brussels-
before - allowing parliament
one 'meaningful' vote on the issue, that amounted to by-passing the democratic process of having it's passage through parliament before completing the agreement with Brussels.
Secondary to that error, she compounded it further, by ceding more 'meaningful' votes to parliament, which has allowed MP's to have a dog's breakfast with pulling it to pieces.
The above error's have effectively & deliberately obfuscated what should have been a relatively simple parliamentary process of delivering the 2016 referendum result to leave Europe.
Remainers cry out for another referendum, because they cannot accept the first one, just supposing there was one, with an identical binary question as to 'remain' or 'leave', where the result was reversed, how would you as a remainer feel about it if 'leavers' demanded a 2nd referendum or revocation of A50?
The fact is, we entered europe through a general election manifesto, where the only policy was to negotiate an entry into the EC as it was then called, along with EURATOM.
I believe that policy was wrong, which is why Harold WILSON had a referendum in 1975, whence people voted 'remain', now, the 'difference' between then - now, is that the people who voted leave, accepted that democratic decision, even it being a referendum, whereas currently, remainers are not accepting that same question, again, in a referendum, but, with a result that they disagree with.
The whole point of democracy, is to accept with grace, when your side doesn't 'win', but to accept victory when it does, not necessarily with alacrity, but with silent satisfaction, until, with time, it confirms one's judgement or causes some regret , whichever it is, one cannot 'win' or 'lose' all of the time.
Nothing is perfect, if it was, the universe would not exist, so too with democracy, it's imperfect, but it allows for change, which allows for course correction's over time & allows society to evolve to a degree.