Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:
"The European Union and Britain said on Friday there were still substantial differences over a Brexit trade deal as the EU chief negotiator prepared to travel to London in a last-ditch attempt to avoid a tumultuous finale to the five-year Brexit crisis."
We've asked for the same deal the EU gave Canada. That's what they offered before the negotiations began. One sticking point is fishing. As an independent state we want to control who fishes in our waters. The EU has said that if we restrict EU fishing in UK waters, they will refuse to let us sell the fish in EU markets. The second area is government subsidy. EU countries have clever mechanisms to subsidise struggling industries but they don't want us to do the same. The third area involves EU Courts making decisions on any agreement. We believe our own courts should do that. None of these 'problems' is insoluble and I expect a compromise deal at the last minute.
I've never really never understood the whole concept of a non-binding referendum.
I wonder, if they were ever to have a do-over, would they make it a binding referendum this time?
And how would a binding referendum differ from a non-binding referendum, anyway?
What is the real difference between the two types of referendums?
A 'non-binding' referendum is a test of opinion.
A 'binding' referendum is an instruction to Government.
We had one here on same sex marriage.
It was called a Plebiscite.
You know, where the plebs get to have an opinion that the ruling classes are free to ignore if they disagree.
Thankfully they respected the plebs opinion.
I've known people who thought that the 2016 presidential election was nonbinding, due to the (national) polls back then, and who voted for Trump on a lark, and were shocked when they found out that their vote actually mattered.
Fortunately, nobody had such illusions in 2020.
I knew I could count on you.
"Oven ready, as in half-baked?"