FUN88 สมัครคาสิโนออนไลน์ บาคาร่า -แทงบอล ฝากขั้นต่ำ 200 บาท.갬블링에서 가장 중요한 것은 베팅 | Sports BET
As part of our Open Future initiative, The Economist has asked proponents and opponents of a second vote to put their case
BRITAIN’S referendum to exit the European Union in 2016 was supposed to settle the question of Britain’s future relations with Europe. It hasn’t quite turned out that way. As the risk of a no-deal Brexit grows, so have calls for a second referendum on the issue.?
The Economist is not neutral on this issue; we believe that a second vote is the best way out of the Brexit mess. But it is not a decision to be taken lightly. As part of our Open Future initiative, which aims to spur civil conversation on critical issues, we have invited people on both side of the debate, as well as a few observers of it, to argue their case and to clarify issues.?
Four commentators have already had their say. Hugo Dixon, an entrepreneur, writes in favour of a new referendum here; Justine Greening MP also argues for a second vote here. Henry Newman, the director of Open Europe, a think-tank, argues against here; Nicky Morgan MP voices her opposition here.?
Other contributors will include L. Alan Winters of the University of Sussex, Anand Menon of King’s College London (here), Alan Renwick of University College London (here), Robert Saunders of Queen Mary University of London (here), and Peter Kellner (here), a former president of YouGov, a polling group. Michael Ignatieff, a political writer, former Canadian politician and current president of Central European University in Budapest, will look at what referendums mean for the civic unity of a country (here).
The comments section of the articles is open to registered readers. (Registration is free, here.) We encourage you to participate.