Brexit Bungle

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2018, 04:20 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Is there still time or has the two year window passed?
As to this being a bungle, is it only a bungle because there is no deal?

Great Britain voted to leave the EU, that vote should stand and Great Britain should follow through with the will of the people and find out if it will work for them or not. 

If it doesn't work out, then get together with the EU, find out if they will take you back and start the process of bringing up another vote to rejoin.

Since there's no deal in place, it seems to me that the EU is being really petty. All ties should be cut, EU business and citizens get one month to leave and start fresh. If they don't want to do that, then since members of the EU, Great Britain and the United States are all allies, then get the United States to mediate/arbitrate so that the deal is fair for everyone.

Let Great Britain find out if this was a good idea or not.

I'm curious about how you think the EU is being petty. Not that I disagree with them being petty, but given your post I feel like you may not understand that it is the British government that is dragging their feet on this. The issue is that they don't want to give up the benefits that come with EU membership. But there are requirements to those benefits, and those are what (in theory) the British people voted against with the Brexit vote.

If they don't reach a deal, then the UK is severed from the EU without one as of 29 March, 2019. Both parties can agree to a two-year extension, but I don't think the EU will agree to it.

(12-12-2018, 05:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Unfortunately, I cannot access your links at the moment. WaPo wants me to subscribe and my work computer does not have a working speaker.

Not speaking for my Whig friends, what I am essentially saying is that there can be circumstances that legitimize a re-vote, just as there can be circumstances that lead one to rethink a marriage or a car purchase or any other decision. To acknowledge this is not, in itself, to advocate for "complete subversion of the democratic process."  E.g., 18 U.S. states have recall provisions so that governors may be recalled if voters change their mind. That's how Schartzenegger replaced Davis in CA, right? Without complete subversion of democracy. Surely the principle can be admitted.

I read the whole thing, but I only pasted this for brevity. I don't disagree with most of what you say here. However, I disagree that the circumstances warrant another referendum vote in the case of the Brexit question itself. They voted to leave, and they elected a Parliament to handle the negotiations after that occurred.