Anyone else feel uncomfortable with the idea of a second referendum, given the first?

[MuseumofInnocence]

Apologies, as I'm sure this has been done elsewhere.

I've been thinking a lot about the role of parliamentary sovereignty and how it differs from direct democracy. I was listening to Michael Heseltine again who gave a great speech at the March yesterday. He talks a lot about Parliament and how it is the foundations of our freedom, MPs do a great job, commit great service and so on. And then he concludes that "we the people, must be given the final say". I am a remainer and therefore sympathetic to this view, but given how the first went, and the argument for representative democracy, am I being a bit intellectually dishonest if I go down this road? If MPs were able to fulfil their duty, they would see that Brexit was not in the interests of the UK, and revoke Article 50?

[YouBumder]

If that’s correct why are there so many high profile MPs wanting no deal?

Because they’re as fucking thick as the people who say they’d vote for it.

[1tisILeClerc]

The 'resolution' of Brexit is a 3 way question at this point.
Revoke (stay in the EU) or 2 'versions' of leaving, one being chaotic and the other having a degree of practicality, the WA.

How this 3 way, but with only 2 'final outcomes' is resolved is the issue.

[BelleSausage]

@PizzaCafe2016

Because at this point a No Deal would allow them to finger point at Remain MPs when it all goes tits up.

Example: well Brexit would have been fine if Remain supporting TM hadn’t tried to pass her ridiculous deal and remain supporting MPs had just followed the will of the people and let us (Brexiteers) negotiate the easiest deal in history.

I am already seeing this stance on Facebook and Twitter.

You’ve also got to remember how profitable No Deal will be if you’ve got all your money betting against the pound and the U.K. economy

[Millyonthe]

I'm a Leaver and I'd be happy with a WA or Remain referendum.
WA delivers most of the benefits of EU membership sans FoM. And it opens the door to our eventual departure.
There's such a lot of weird shit going on in the EU now (gilet jaunes, Orban, Italy, banks, Merkel & Macron's army, that I have absolutely no doubt that the WA would win once good communicators like Gove etc get fully behind it.

[BelleSausage]

Merkel and Macrons army?

[BelleSausage]

Have you any hard evidence of that (no doctored photos from FB and Twitter)?

[Peregrina]

WA doesn't actually deliver anything except an orderly departure - it will cue at least two more years of negotiations, so we may get most of the benefits of the EU without FoM or we may get nothing.

[BelleSausage]

ERG will never agree to WA.

Never forget that they were the ones responsible for blocking it in parliament

Them and the DUP have TM over a barrel and she let them do it.

[1tisILeClerc]

{gilet jaunes,} The ones still protesting (vandalising) France and Belgium have friends in Tommy Robinson so you are not leaving them behind, it is a violent movement against 'peaceful' Europeans.

{ Orban} Elements of the same.
{Italy} Yes a financial and far right issue that needs serious attention.

{banks} He and others need investigating from the USA and in various parts of Europe.

{ Merkel & Macron's army}. What is wrong with Europe defending itself against Putin and possible incursions from elsewhere? Trump is playing silly buggers with NATO and is not necessarily the most reliable ally.

[Acis]

If that’s correct why are there so many high profile MPs wanting no deal?

- because some of them actively opposed the international treaty in question
- because some of them have other priorities
- because some of them Don't Know Shit.

And because some of them have arranged their financial affairs so that they stand to make a very nice fat profit out of a No Deal scenario.

[Millyonthe]

ERG will never agree to WA You're probably right.

Merkel and Macron's EU army. They've duscussed it quite openly including when they signed their treaty recently. Just search the BBC or youtube.

[1tisILeClerc]

By having funds in the 'right' place and moving them around (essentially betting on rate changes) JRM has 'made' around £7 Million IIRC in the last year.
A bit like going to the bookies and knowing which 2 horses will come either first or second in a particular race. You can 'predict' a fall or rise in the Pound with fair accuracy for the various statements that Theresa puts out. Her speech in Salzburg last year caused the Pound to jump by 1% for example. Of course they are waiting for 'the big one' when the UK actually leaves at which point all the sharks will be fighting for the action.

[Millyonthe]

Merkel & Macron's army}. What is wrong with Europe defending itself against Putin and possible incursions from elsewhere?
Off the top of my head, it will probably be ruinously expensive and possibly quite useless and it could very easily fall into the hands of fascists.

[1tisILeClerc]

All the EU countries have their own military, what is wrong with them getting together (as they already do in joint exercises) to be best prepared for possible aggression from outside the EU?
Who knows, when the UK leaves they may fight the UK if necessary.
That wouldn't be a possibility if the UK were part of it.

[1tisILeClerc]

{Off the top of my head, it will probably be ruinously expensive and possibly quite useless and it could very easily fall into the hands of fascists}

You seem to be describing Brexit here.

[lonelyplanetmum]

What is wrong with Europe defending itself against Putin

Yes he's the real threat not people in Bruges, Avignon or Malaga.

We've had:
• poisonings in Salisbury
•regular incursions by military vessels into land and sea space
• confirmed Soviet interventions into our cyberspace

And as we've already hugely slashed our military spending and personnel - a joint initiative with us helping command it would be cheaper. It would be an excellent joint insurance policy against Putin especially as we can't even cope with a drone these days.

[1tisILeClerc]

Soldiers from across Europe and the USA are busy in North Africa helping to keep the peace and prevent (as far as possible) terrorist (ISIS and other) attacks on villages and towns. It doesn't hit MSM but they are there.
In doing this they are helping reduce the probable flow of refugees from these regions.
Integrating the armies of Europe makes them a far more effective force.

[Abra1de]

NATO does a better job than a putative Euro army would. Trump won’t be around forever and NATO has been around for more than half a century. Trump also has a point when he says that a lot of European countries should pay a fairer share of he cost of NATO.

I’m a Remainer but think a Euro army is a bad idea.

[Windowsareforcheaters]

A possible EU army wouldn't be a standing defence force, it would be like the UN or NATO so it wouldn't cost any more than maintaining the army we have.

At times of crisis each country would contribute and they would serve under a joint commander. Until the Brexit fiasco it was highly likely this would have been a British or French General.

We have served in forces like this, usually under US command, on several, occasions not least during WW2.

[1tisILeClerc]

The commander of the European operations towards the end of WW2 was American.
The great 'British' contingent drew personnel from all of the British empire and of course many 'free' combatants from Poland, France and elsewhere in Europe.

[Windowsareforcheaters]

I am a bit puzzled as to why everyone assumes a European army would be a discreet standing army. I am also baffled as to why the idea of being in a multi national force is so horrendous when we do it frequently.

And I have no comprehension of why this is such a bad idea when a multinational force lead by a foreigner helped us to what is arguably Britain's greatest victory in WW2.

[CoachBombay]

Many military people don't want an EU army. It's got a lot to do with tradition and the values the armed forces have more than their joint missions such as NATO and the such.

You swear an oath to the Queen when you join her majesty's forces. The entire rank structure and commission system is based around the monarch. You don't salute the officer you salute the commission, the queen's commission. That wouldn't be the same for an EU army, who wants to swear allegiance to a "commissioner"?

Regimental history is also fiercely important to them, and also just the general history and traditions they have. They don't want that diluted.

They also worry about the 9million grey areas that would transpire from an EU army. For instance if a Dutch officer gave you a command, you need not follow it if you do not want to. Hence why working with yanks can get a bit of a nightmare on the ground but that's a story for another day. But under a EU army your probably going to end up with some Ukrainian nut job barking orders at you.

You serve Queen and Country, nobody wants to "serve the EU". Quite frankly the lads and lasses aren't going to die with a EU flag attached to them or have a EU flag on their coffin....grim I know, but that's the truth.

[Windowsareforcheaters]

Why the assumption that an EU army would be separate entity to the U.K. armed forces?

An EU army would be a joint mission for the very reasons CoachBombay explains. No European army would like to merge with another, each country has its own traditions and structures.

An EU army would, in all probability, be a joint task force just like The UN, NATO and the allies in WW2.

[CoachBombay]

There is no need for EU Joint missions though, most mainland European Army's are part of NATO. There need not be another military joint force.

NATO serves a purpose and serves it well, there is no need for anything else.

Many see an EU Army also as a possible seat grab for the security council, of which France and UK have permeant seats on, there have been whispers that the powers that be in Brussels are unhappy about this and want their seats too as a EU seat, rather than the independent nations they represent. Which makes a few people uneasy.

Whilst I'm not anticipate EU, I am anti EU getting any type of military power as a whole.

[Windowsareforcheaters]

NATO served its Cold War purpose very well but we are in a post Cold War world. There is every likelihood that European and US foreign policy will not align in years to come. Our long term foreign policy goals are much more likely to coincide with Europe rather than the US.

As you know there is no standing NATO or UN army, the same could very well be true of an EU army.

As to the UN Security Council it is ludicrous that the permanent membership is based on the winners of a war 70+ years ago. British and French membership does not reflect the geopolitical situation we are in today. One European member with a representative from India (?) would make much more sense.