REMAINER May Bangs On About Compromise. But What’s Her Motive?

PARLIAMENT will block Brexit unless a compromise is reached”, “Compromise isn’t a dirty word”. These are just some of the phrases often thrown around with impunity, most notably by Remainer May in her recent resignation speech.

On the surface it seems quite a reasonable suggestion to reach a compromise between two entrenched camps on either side of the debate. But examine it deeper and you will see a flaw.

The whole reason for the EU Referendum being put to the public was because Parliament couldn’t agree on the answer. Opposing views within Westminster on our relationship with the EU made it impossible for our MP’s to come to a settled consensus. As a result they agreed to ask the public to decide in what was billed as a once in a generation vote.

Therea May often speaks of ‘compromise’.

We voted to Leave, but then the MP’s who wanted to Remain insisted that all voices must be heard and accommodated in the debate once again; that everyone should be heard and a compromise sought between Leave and Remain. Thus MP’s who lost the vote have managed to drag the argument back to where it was in Westminster before they agreed to ask the public in the first place.

All of this turmoil and upset in our nation over the past few years has been for nought because, frankly, what was the point if at the end of the day a compromise needs to be sought?

Knowing full well that it was because a compromise couldn’t be found in the first place that created the need to ask the public via the Referendum, it makes a mockery of the whole thing and is a complete affront to the concept of democracy, where Remain MP’s have used Parliamentary process to paralyse the entire affair so as to render it pointless from the outset.

May delivering her resignation speech.

Knowing this and watching it unfold before our eyes, there are only two options available to the public as we watch amazed as the belief and respect for our Parliamentary process falls away. These MP’s intent on preventing Brexit are either allowed to do this, in which case voting for anything in future will always be open to challenge, and the entire concept of democracy and majority vote carrying sway will be destroyed forever; Or the electorate finally stand up, face them down and insist that the majority vote is carried by whatever means available, as it is not an extremist position to want democracy and a vote respected. It is the extremist position to not to want it respected.

There is a fundamental principle at stake here, as the People in this realm through history have fought to be Sovereign and therefore by default Parliament, who are the People’s Representatives assume that Sovereignty. This works fine when Parliament represents but what happens, like in this case when Parliament doesn’t represent the express view of the People but seeks to impose it’s own?

Parliament was designed to be the servant of the people yet today, many within it seek to become their Masters and so the question then very simply becomes,
“What are you willing to do about it if anything?”

Leave your vote

0 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 0

Upvotes: 0

Upvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Downvotes: 0

Downvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


To Top

Hey there!

Forgot password?

Forgot your password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.


Processing files…