When he asks for the extension there is going to be an almighty push to put the blame on everyone else trying to thwart Brexit, the will of the people. The idea being that it will build up a head of steam and give him a majority in the looming general election. — Punshhh
↪iolo I'm pointing out there isn't a clear line between various cultures and you reply with "our culture", "our language" and us vs. them and how it shouldn't change: that is a interpretation of culture as monolithic par excellence.
I'm not answering your question because I'm not going to speak for an entire "culture" as to what they should do. That would be hubris. — Benkei
I almost wish Boris could negotiate with no-deal really on the table to see what the result would be - maybe with a secret agreement with parliament to stop no deal at the last moment.. — Tim3003
It would make absolutely 0 difference. The EU has four central pillars : freedom of movement, freedom of services, freedom for goods and freedom of capital. No proposal that undermines any of those pillars is going to be acceptable in any way, shape or form. — Benkei
Remain, and break the referendum promise.
Reinstate the border in N. Ireland, and break the N.I treaty.
Unification of Ireland, and break the treaty. — unenlightened
I don't think that screwing the promise of the first referendum is betraying the promise. — Punshhh
Yes, I don't deny that, however what was the promise to do? Let's say Johnson declared war on Let's say Luxembourg today, I wouldn't put it past him. Giving the reason that this is how to respect the will of the people, there is no other way to do it because Luxembourg was planning, indeed collaborating to thwart the will of the people, right from the beginning. The ends don't justify the means. Lord Sumption said following the Supreme Court judgement,"the ends don't justify the means, if they were to, that would be tyranny".No. to the extent that there was a promise to respect the result, not respecting the result is breaking the promise. That would be a good thing, but it would be breaking the promise. Let's not resort to gobbledygook
Presumably the promise was for parliament to carry out the will of the people with due care to the country and if unknowingly carrying it out were to put the country in peril, to refrain from doing that and to find another solution.
I would suggest that Parliament's duty is firstly to the Crown and secondly to the people and that parliament would hold an oath to the Crown to have a duty of care to the country, first and foremost. — Punshhh
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.