Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18064 Location: On the road
MGarbutt1986 wrote:She can't, Liz will be watching American Pickers.
And who replaces her?
We are headed for a G.E, and the misery of a Labour Government I am afraid.
Labour are 8 points behind in the polls - even with this shambles of a PM - unreal
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Oct 26 2006 Posts: 13897 Location: No bowl, stick, STICK!
I think it matters little which party is in power, the general public ensure the country operates inspite of them. The only difference will be their own ideologies having this niche effects. A Labour government would be no more miserable then what have now. I have lived with both Labour and Tory tenures in my life and noticed little change between the two.
Joined: Oct 26 2006 Posts: 13897 Location: No bowl, stick, STICK!
Just also seen May level some lip turn sleight on the House for rejecting her crappy deal, effectively saying because of their decision, the country is heading into disarray. Perhaps had she not run down the clock and looked to consult right at the very start of the process, she might have just found some middle ground.
Joined: Oct 26 2005 Posts: 3829 Location: In the seaside town ...that they forgot to bomb
I think the political correspondent Rob Watson summed it up nicely -
"Theresa May is in a profound crisis,the country is in a profound crisis, her governing Conservative Party is massively disfunctionally divided, Parliament is divided, the country is divided, business is despairing & we still don't know how Brexit ends, but apart from that everything's fine"
Anyhow, my question's this -
If Britain revoked Article Fifty, how long would they have to wait to invoke it once again?
Anyone?
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in. They're eating the cats! They're eating the pets!
The Devil's Advocate wrote:I think the political correspondent Rob Watson summed it up nicely -
"Theresa May is in a profound crisis,the country is in a profound crisis, her governing Conservative Party is massively disfunctionally divided, Parliament is divided, the country is divided, business is despairing & we still don't know how Brexit ends, but apart from that everything's fine"
Anyhow, my question's this -
If Britain revoked Article Fifty, how long would they have to wait to invoke it once again?
Anyone?
IF we revoked article 50, and I don't know why I say "we", because what the majority of "we" wanted has been largely ignored, "we" would be stuck in Europe forever. (Which "I" would be quite happy about, but goes against what "we" voted for)
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 32068 Location: The Corridor of Uncertainty
The problem is the referendum split the country but not along party lines. That means parties are going to struggle to sort it out as they’re always reluctant to meet in the middle to do a deal. Meeting in the middle is going to annoy people on both sides of the argument so much that the politicians are paralysed since they’re restricted by their own longer term ambitions. Leavers disagree on what it means to leave. Remainers are split into those who might go for a soft Brexit Norway option and those that want to forget the whole thing and stay in.
52/48 was always too close a result to settle this. In Australia they have referendums more often but in order to enact change the vote to change has to be about 75% IIRC. They should’ve done that with ours.
"If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them," - Wayne Bennett.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17160 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
Bullseye wrote:52/48 was always too close a result to settle this. In Australia they have referendums more often but in order to enact change the vote to change has to be about 75% IIRC. They should’ve done that with ours.
I'm pretty sure this government of the people have imposed far more draconian rules on trades union ballots than a mere majority.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
Bullseye wrote:The problem is the referendum split the country but not along party lines. That means parties are going to struggle to sort it out as they’re always reluctant to meet in the middle to do a deal. Meeting in the middle is going to annoy people on both sides of the argument so much that the politicians are paralysed since they’re restricted by their own longer term ambitions. Leavers disagree on what it means to leave. Remainers are split into those who might go for a soft Brexit Norway option and those that want to forget the whole thing and stay in.
52/48 was always too close a result to settle this. In Australia they have referendums more often but in order to enact change the vote to change has to be about 75% IIRC. They should’ve done that with ours.
Yeah, it’s noticeable that the Brexiteers talk in terms of the 17.4 million, which is legitimate and accurate, more than 52%, which is a majority but a narrow one. Obviously sufficient for Brexit, but not necessarily their preferred version of it.
I understand May’s instinct to try to firm up her base in the parliamentary Conservative party, having lost her majority. However, once the extent of the recalcitrance of the ERG became clear, the arithmetic became impossible for her. She chose holding that ship together rather building a cross-party consensus around a softer Brexit. In fairness, she might well have been chucked overboard if she’d tried the latter. But there was an element of personal pride in there as well, imo - in that she just couldn’t bring herself to ‘go crawling’ to Corbyn and Labour.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum