leeslover Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 May we be forced to spell out very clearly how and when she would leave or she'll get buried in the membership vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 May we be forced to spell out very clearly how and when she would leave or she'll get buried in the membership vote. She was convincing this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Who is it saying it? David Pannick QC, reported by David Allen Green and others on Twitter. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c8985886-3df9-11e6-a28b-4ed6c4bdada3(behind a paywall) https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/748340246513860609 https://twitter.com/johnhalton/status/748403831847981056 Obviously it'd be suicide to completely ignore the 52% result, but put this and Theresa May's comments about postponing (as 24h mentioned above) together and anything that does happen doesn't look likely to happen quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 May we be forced to spell out very clearly how and when she would leave or she'll get buried in the membership vote. Possibly, but the last time (the only time) she's given a hostage to fortune like a date or a target, she got burned. "Net migration will be down to the tens of thousands by 2015." May has repeatedly told the police (another of her natural constituencies) to get :censored:ed, so why not the Saga monkeys? Why not tell them we'll leave when she decides it's a good time to do so and wait for them to die? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 What I find odd is that May was as abject as Corbyn for Remain, yet one is a pariah and another likely PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) David Pannick QC, reported by David Allen Green and others on Twitter. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c8985886-3df9-11e6-a28b-4ed6c4bdada3(behind a paywall) https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/748340246513860609 https://twitter.com/johnhalton/status/748403831847981056 Obviously it'd be suicide to completely ignore the 52% result, but put this and Theresa May's comments about postponing (as 24h mentioned above) together and anything that does happen doesn't look likely to happen quickly. Cheers - it makes a lot of sense considering the referendum is also only supposed to be advisory/non-legally binding. Edit - Interesting read, particularly as the 2015 Referendum Act only states that a Referendum is to 'be held' and states nothing about what should happen if there is a vote to leave. If he's correct, it would be illegal for a vote not to happen regardless of the referendum result. Edited June 30, 2016 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 What I find odd is that May was as abject as Corbyn for Remain, yet one is a pariah and another likely PM. She wasn't the leader of the party and was known not to be keen on a referendum at all. I think I'm right in saying she's the only Tory Minister in the past six years to take actual powers back from Brussels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 A Labour shadow Minister just resigned in the middle of a bill committee. Definitely a world first. It's only the finance bill, so nothing important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 What I find odd is that May was as abject as Corbyn for Remain, yet one is a pariah and another likely PM. What about Sturgeon who has now lost two consecutive referendums (referenda? referendi?)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_lead Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 There were 92 votes for Leave this morning but now there are 93. Has a 2nd Referendum been announced, yeehhhh!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_lead Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them. Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead. Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if anyone ever does do it, it will be awful. Clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 What I find odd is that May was as abject as Corbyn for Remain, yet one is a pariah and another likely PM.I've said elsewhere that I suspect she was kept out of the line of fire as Establishment Plan C in the event of the vote doing for Cameron and Osborne. I genuinely think the Tories will be as bad a boat as Labour are now if she tries to stay in through the back door, if that's possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 so three of the runners are an idiot who tried to bring the education system back to the 50s a home secretary who failed miserably to do the one thing she was charged with doing namely lower net migration and the third is a new blue eyed boy who believes the power of prayer will cure homosexuality and cancer snafu for the tories then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/06/30/brexit-on-why-as-a-matter-of-law-triggering-article-50-does-not-require-parliament-to-legislate/ This is a meaty one for those interested in the legal side of Article 50. I've no idea if it's right but I think it says that the PM can apply A50 on her or his own because there is no legislation that suggests otherwise. It doesn't repeal the 1972 Act as that simply enables Treaties to be enacted through UK Law, which they still could Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 There is a lot of confusion around the 'exit agreement' which will take about 2 years after Article 50. This 'exit agreement' is really a divorce settlement about things like the rights of citizens that currently live and work in each other's country. The media have kidded us or didn't understand that the way we trade/work/engage with the EU in the future is something entirely different and will take many more years. What is almost certain is that by the time all these terms are agreed the UK will have conceded to the free movement of people if it wants access to the benefits of the single market. Internationally, we are better negotiating as part of the Eu than we are alone. When we negiociate trade deals we also offer access to other countries within the EU, outside of the EU we will have less to bargain with. Unless that is, during our EU negotiations we can retain these benefits but there will now be a price to pay. I believe the full impact of leaving the EU is still being understood as no one truely believed we we'd leave. Rest assured that the Tory government has a new excuse to impose further austerity on us, and judging by the state of Labour we will be stuck with it for 20 years Its only just dawned on me the truths above... We are in serious trouble.... Its the working poor who voted for this who are going to be hurt the most. Morons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Its the working poor who voted for this who are going to be hurt the most. Morons Do you do weddings and childrens parties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Its only just dawned on me the truths above... We are in serious trouble.... Its the working poor who voted for this who are going to be hurt the most. Morons Perhaps we should stop them voting in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Do you do weddings and childrens parties? When all the jobs go it might be a choice between that or strawberry picking.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Perhaps we should stop them voting in future. Good idea! A lot of them used to self moderate and couldn't be arsed.. Its really worrying they seem interested all of a sudden!!! Edited July 1, 2016 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Perhaps we should stop them voting in future. Shoot them all at dawn , will solve a lot of problems !!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Giving people a vote eh? Knew it would end in tears. Women were the straw that broke the camels back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them. Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead. Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if anyone ever does do it, it will be awful. Clear? ^That. To be fair, the chaos at the top of politics is about what you'd expect for a more-serious-than-Suez crisis. I don't think May did the same as Corbyn in the referendum campaign though. She stayed out of it because she genuinely is an unenthusiastic stayer, and a little bit because they decided a long time ago (probably after Osborne got booed at the Paralympics) that she was the next cab on the rank. https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/06/30/brexit-on-why-as-a-matter-of-law-triggering-article-50-does-not-require-parliament-to-legislate/ This is a meaty one for those interested in the legal side of Article 50. I've no idea if it's right but I think it says that the PM can apply A50 on her or his own because there is no legislation that suggests otherwise. It doesn't repeal the 1972 Act as that simply enables Treaties to be enacted through UK Law, which they still could The legalities are neither here nor there. If she wants us to leave and has decent terms, we'll leave. If she doesn't and the terms are :censored:, we'll stay. Its the working poor who voted for this who are going to be hurt the most. Morons I agree with this. If you think the electorate made a terrible decision, you've every right to call them out for it. Voters have to take their share of responsibility or democracy won't work. I'd sooner blame Nigel Farridge and Johnson though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I agree with this. If you think the electorate made a terrible decision, you've every right to call them out for it. Voters have to take their share of responsibility or democracy won't work. I'd sooner blame Nigel Farridge and Johnson though. I have to say, seeing people being interviewed saying they'd voted leave but were gutted by the outcome, did make me think that democracy is wasted on stupid people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_lead Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 So Corbyn's to face a leadership challenge 'in days'. Let me guess, on the same day that the Chilcot Report is released? Blair and his cohorts will stop at nothing to help deflect the tidal wave of criticism that is heading his way. How have we got to the point where British society as it currently operates is considered acceptable, It's fast coming to the point where the only hope I have is that history will look back in astonishment and contempt on these self- serving charlatans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.