Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, hippo said:

So are we any nearer to:-

1. A Second referendum

2. A General Election

3.A Tory Leadership Contest

4. Staying fully in the EU ?

In short .....what happens next ?  (in your opinion)

 

Nearer to all of them than we were 24 hours ago. Literally and politically.

Still quite a long way from all of them.

(3) is the likely next thing to happen of the four from your list though.

Edited by ml1dch
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Nearer to all of them than we were 24 hours ago. Literally and politically.

Still quite a long way from all of them.

(3) is the likely next thing to happen of the four from your list though.

3 is inevitable, though a few more days/weeks of blood sports to go before it happens.

2 is what many will seek to avoid, but it may become inevitable as a consequence of other things.

1 may happen at the point where people both believe it's safe to do so, and they need political cover.

4 is likely to happen, one way or another.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hippo said:

So are we any nearer to:-

1. A Second referendum

2. A General Election

3.A Tory Leadership Contest

4. Staying fully in the EU ?

In short .....what happens next ?  (in your opinion)

 

4. Is the most likely outcome imo

the desl is shit , no deal has become that little bit harder thanks to Grieve , more and more “fear related” headlines being pushed , May will lose the first vote , go back to the EU , get no concessions , parliament will refer it back to the public and the ECJ will kindly slot the last piece of the jigsaw in place and rule that we can withdraw article 50

then the leavers will start asking for another referendum whilst remainers will say we had one and you can’t have another one , get over it etc 

Edited by tonyh29
Slot , not slit !!
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Could you just imagine Grayling in charge of food rationing!

Civil servants trying to explain to him why you can't give people chips once the potatoes have all gone.

Last year we were a net exporter of potatoes to the EU ... just saying :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Could you just imagine Grayling in charge of food rationing! 

I absolutely can.

He would be the archetypal beadle, from Dickens.

It's probably a role he aspires to. Suit him down to the ground.  Arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tonyh29 said:

Last year we were a net exporter of potatoes to the EU ... just saying :P

This'll have to stop if we're to prove we can strike our own trade deals.

I suggest we sell half as many, but to Mexico.

I doubt they've even heard of potatoes over there, could be a whole new world of opportunity.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

This'll have to stop if we're to prove we can strike our own trade deals.

I suggest we sell half as many, but to Mexico.

I doubt they've even heard of potatoes over there, could be a whole new world of opportunity.

Maybe we can swap them with the Mexicans for these patata things that they eat , they sound kinda exotic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I doubt they've even heard of potatoes over there, could be a whole new world of opportunity. 

Excellent idea.  The country should Raleigh to your call.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astonishing performance by Mrs Loathsome on the Today programme.

Instead of accepting with good grace the assertion of Parliament's authority on the legal advice, she is chiding MPs for requiring its publication, saying they will live to regret it.  She quotes lawyer-client confidentiality, without recognising that the decision to which the advice pertains is one for Parliament, not just the present ragbag of postholders that calls itself a government.

She goes on to suggest, without quite stating it explicitly, that the decision to leave has been made by the government, and that Parliament can't change it.

I  can't work out if she is simply unaware of the constitutional implications of what she is saying, or if she is intentionally proposing a state of affairs which Parliament has explicitly rejected, and if so, to what end.

In either case,  building support is clearly not on her mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, peterms said:

She goes on to suggest, without quite stating it explicitly, that the decision to leave has been made by the government, and that Parliament can't change it.

I  can't work out if she is simply unaware of the constitutional implications of what she is saying, or if she is intentionally proposing a state of affairs which Parliament has explicitly rejected, and if so, to what end.

I don't think she's unaware. She is very much the want-to-be autocrat (as much as she is allowed to be).

She announced the 2017 election in front of her lectern outside number 10 as though it was still her sole decision to make (rather than a decision needed to be made by two thirds of the Commons).

Look at the other things like: Miller; the A50 case in front of the CJEU; the government's attitude to opposition day debates and motions; the outright lies that are given to parliament by Ministers and which go unpunished (she's the arbiter of the Ministerial code so the two arguments are either that she's too weak to enforce it or that this is part of her playbook and I tend towards the latter).

I'm sure there's plenty more but to nick a phrase from Ed Vaisey when asked last night to list the errors made by Cameron in and around the referendum in 2016, "I only have six minutes."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't think she's unaware. She is very much the want-to-be autocrat (as much as she is allowed to be).

She announced the 2017 election in front of her lectern outside number 10 as though it was still her sole decision to make (rather than a decision needed to be made by two thirds of the Commons).

I think he's talking about Leadsom, not May.

Although I'm sure their views would be pretty much in sync on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I think he's talking about Leadsom, not May.

Ah. My mistake. :blush:

Having cautioned Peter against being a bit tunnel vision on something in another thread, I have done precisely the same here. Apologies.

Edit: If it was about Leasdom then I'm definitely going for the 'simply unaware' angle. ;)

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â