if you would be kind enough to lead the fulminations?
If I may add a little fuel, did you see Diane Abbot while comrade Jeremy was delivering his very excellent evisceration of the scoundrel Boris? She was chewing away like a demented bovine. I think she may now actually be mentally ill.
I've always had time for Ken Clarke, but it's come to a pretty pass when I'm looking at Philip Hammond and Fatty Soames as brothers in arms, and feel disgusted about the way their party has treated them.Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman
Lord Fink in The Times today says its either No Deal or Corbyn. {Perhaps just to forgive himself for helping enable no deal, potentially.}
If that really is the choice, I hope this country gets nuked just after the glw and I have emigrated. You're more than welcome to join us in the Parvati Valley, Herbs.
He now can't get a deal as the ERG would refuse it and he'd have to sack them. The Tory party is now socially the Brexit Party, and economically hoping to ape American right-of-party Republicans.
Keef Joseph once explained to Maggie the difference between Conservatism and Republicanism. And I doubt BoJo, for all his 2nd class classics degree, would understand it.
How can a soi disant Conservative and Unionist be prepared to change the UK into four separate failed states just to hang onto power a bit longer?
You've missed a minor detail, g.
On 23rd June 2016 the electorate voted on a referendum, mandated by parliament, to leave the EU.
On 23rd June 2016 every political party in the UK became the Brexit Party, for if political parties do not exist to carry out the wishes of the electorate, why do they exist?
The question was one or the other, so all this other deal/no deal* is all rather confusing.
the public are mostly idiots either way so shouldn't have been asked.
*I am yet to figure out why Noel Edmunds is involved.
Spoken like a true, pleb-hating technocrat.
Ever thought of being an MP?
The wishes of the electorate change, C. That's why we have elections. The ability to change one's mind is what differentiates us from a dictatorship.
Constitutionally, it was also an advisory referendum, it was mandated by the previous parl which can't bind this one, and no manifestos matter given it was a hung parl. Therefore it's up to the MPs to be representatives, not delegates, to cite Burke.
If my side stops it then your side can go out and vote for the Brexit Party (or their Tory clone) on a manifesto of Art 50, no negotiation and WTO.
That's how it works.
We had an advisory referendum passed by a previous parl, with the HoC now containing a majority of members who stood on a "We won't have a no deal" platform. The Tories said they'd have a deal, but as long as it was better than no deal. That is a judgement to be made by the individual MP.
But no matter, we didn't vote for no deal in a binding referendum, and even if we had, the 2017 GE trumps it constitutionally. (Though if we had, the govt would have had no need to call a GE in 2017.)
The public didn't want a no deal then and don't want a no deal now. And more to the constitutional point, their elected representatives no want no deal.
If you don't like it, vote for a party that wants to change MPs from representatives to delegates, or introduce direct democracy, or even a dictatorship.
But until you do,we have over 200 years of constitutional precedence for this since Burke's declaration to the electors of Bristol in 1774.
Would have hoped a gent like yourself would have understood the constitutional history of our proud nation, C.
Just like there was no "No Deal" option on the ballot, there also wasn't an option to end our representative, parliamentary democracy.
In fact, the clusterfück of the last 3 years is all down to these two facts. And I'm afraid, constitutionally, our representatives elected in 2017 trump the non specific wishes of an advisory referendum in 2016.
Bit of a pickle, but there we be. And had the ERG voted for the proffered deal, we'd have left no matter how many lefties like me went a-protesting.
Ironically, I agree that May's deal was vassalage, and would personally rather have no deal than that (unless we first got the consent of NI to break the union in this way.)
But no deal wasn't on the ballot, nor in the manifestos, and - the only thing that matters constitutionally - isn't in the hearts of a majority of our elected representatives.
If we don't like howthey choose to vote, we can kick 'em out next GE.
This is the way it has worked since the Great Reform Act, and in many boroughs, since the preceding centuries.
Are you familiar with the term 'tl;dr', g?
We done a voting. We made a decision. That decision can certainly be changed by a different voting. But we never got the first decision implemented.
That is the act of a dictatorship.
Not entirely. People say that on my odd foray onto my missus' facebook page to explain to economically-illiterate raver mates why they're being fückwitted.
We done a voting. We made a decision. That decision can certainly be changed by a different voting. But we never got the first decision implemented.
That is the act of a dictatorship.
I assume it either means:
1. Oh, thank you. You're so right. I see the error of my ways now.
or 2. Please explain further in another essay length post.
I can never be sure which.
Lie.
This is the root of your sophistry, that the referendum was 'advisory' and therefore can be ignored while pretending this is still democracy.
The govt spent millions on a leaflet which said, while telling people to vote remain: "The Government will implement your decision".
A campaign leaflet is not written law. It's a politicians promise worth less than the paper it was printed on.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote