|
Post by peterboat on Oct 9, 2017 10:44:59 GMT
Amber Rudd has a majority of just 346 in her Hastings and Rye constituency and is on the list of senior Tories in key marginals for 'decapitation' at the next general election, the Labour party is already campaigning hard locally to achieve this. But the next election is such a long time away and it seems that the problems of Mrs May might be going away
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 14:16:42 GMT
Mrs May is resembling Monty Python's dead parrot, she's still there because she's been nailed to the perch!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 19:38:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Oct 9, 2017 19:49:19 GMT
she has a chance to say Brexit is wrong but she won't What do you mean when you say Brexit is "wrong"? The UK held a democratic referendum, capable of withstanding international scrutiny, and the majority voted for it. The result may not have accorded with your personal wishes but then the world doesn't revolve around you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 19:50:41 GMT
37% of the electorate voted to leave!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 9, 2017 20:00:00 GMT
37% of the electorate voted to leave! that doesn't make it wrong
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 9, 2017 20:56:24 GMT
fortunately or unfortunately dependant on you point of view where the public democracy is based on a voluntary vote. What is registration for the electoral roll was compulsory for all residents whether they were entitle to vote or not. How would that have effected just the referendum but all the parliamentary elections for the last 100 years if voting had been compulsory on pain of a sizeable fine with the poll paper being checked before it went in the box for spoiled papers and a requirement to file a properly complete ballot form.
So whatever happened there was a vote registered for every qualified person in the UK for the referendum and the difference was 1% for leaving.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Oct 9, 2017 20:57:47 GMT
If the talks are proving difficult, why is that May's fault? It's more likely to be EU bods being unreasonable, trying to hold Britain to ransom. I look forward to her being decisive very soon, and telling this corrupt organisation to sling their hook. At the end of the day, what's the point in having growth if the majority of jobs created cause further public debt to mount up because of Labour's barmy tax credit system? And cause further erosion of low skilled workers' wages through the simple laws of supply and demand?
At the end of the day, the biased leaflet sent to every household before the referendum stated that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the single market. That is exactly what Britain needs to do. Britain must not allow itself to be punished. If that means tarrifs for exports and an associated reduction in economic activity, so be it. Better this than streams of EU citizens continuing to flood in, impoverishing the country, worsening public services for those already here, and generally reducing their quality of life. Does anyone really want a never ending cycle of destruction of green spaces, and the worsening of already horrendous traffic in many parts of this small, overcrowded island?
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 9, 2017 21:04:04 GMT
ricco I do not think she has the guts to walk away. I agree the EU are trying to force the UK to bend knee to the EU. If May does we are in the EU's power until someone has the guts to tell them where to go.
If one looks at it with any logic if the UK walked away the EU has a major budge hole that not even Germany can fill, because we will pay nothing. The money being save being spent on getting us up and running under WTO.
Who loses more in trade as far as I can see the EU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 0:02:09 GMT
Well answering the original question I would say 'not long'.
Much better to step down and see how well Boris can do when actually tasked with the job. Speaking from the sidelines is easy when you don't have to actually deliver anything.
He got us into this mess, lets see if he can get us out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 10, 2017 6:28:40 GMT
37% of the electorate voted to leave! Only 28% of the population! Winning the vote by a tiny majority. Of course, by all accounts those measly figures are even smaller now, they would lose. Staunch brexiters won't agree or allow it if course, the good hard working people aren't allowed to change their minds,or realise the error of their ways, repent and vote to stay, especially when they actually know what the deal is. We need a referendum to agree,or not, the final deal. That would be true democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Oct 10, 2017 8:10:06 GMT
37% of the electorate voted to leave! Only 28% of the population! Winning the vote by a tiny majority. Of course, by all accounts those measly figures are even smaller now, they would lose. Staunch brexiters won't agree or allow it if course, the good hard working people aren't allowed to change their minds,or realise the error of their ways, repent and vote to stay, especially when they actually know what the deal is. We need a referendum to agree,or not, the final deal. That would be true democracy. Democracy might allow another referendum, with a choice along these lines: Would you: a/ Leave the EU, accepting the trade deal negotiated by the government, agreed by other members. b/ Reject this agreement, leave the EU with no trade deal. Democracy shouldn't allow for a re run of the original referendum, that matter has already been resolved.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 10, 2017 8:47:11 GMT
Only 28% of the population! Winning the vote by a tiny majority. Of course, by all accounts those measly figures are even smaller now, they would lose. Staunch brexiters won't agree or allow it if course, the good hard working people aren't allowed to change their minds,or realise the error of their ways, repent and vote to stay, especially when they actually know what the deal is. We need a referendum to agree,or not, the final deal. That would be true democracy. Democracy might allow another referendum, with a choice along these lines: Would you: a/ Leave the EU, accepting the trade deal negotiated by the government, agreed by other members. b/ Reject this agreement, leave the EU with no trade deal. Democracy shouldn't allow for a re run of the original referendum, that matter has already been resolved. Why not? Oh, I know, we'd stay in the EU! While for some it was a genuinely principled vote to leave, for others it was a protest vote, they didn't think there would be an Out majority (Cameron and his horde thought they were safe too) or they believed the brexiters lies (Boris is still touting the £350m a day lie) and people should be allowed to decide once they know and understand the true situation. So what are your reasons for excluding that option?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 10, 2017 8:51:48 GMT
Democracy might allow another referendum, with a choice along these lines: Would you: a/ Leave the EU, accepting the trade deal negotiated by the government, agreed by other members. b/ Reject this agreement, leave the EU with no trade deal. Democracy shouldn't allow for a re run of the original referendum, that matter has already been resolved. Why not? Oh, I know, we'd stay in the EU! While for some it was a genuinely principled vote to leave, for others it was a protest vote, they didn't think there would be an Out majority (Cameron and his horde thought they were safe too) or they believed the brexiters lies (Boris is still touting the £350m a day lie) and people should be allowed to decide once they know and understand the true situation. So what are your reasons for excluding that option? because we've already had a referendum on the question of in or out, why should we have another just because the majority of politicians didn't like the result?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 10, 2017 9:06:29 GMT
Why not? Oh, I know, we'd stay in the EU! While for some it was a genuinely principled vote to leave, for others it was a protest vote, they didn't think there would be an Out majority (Cameron and his horde thought they were safe too) or they believed the brexiters lies (Boris is still touting the £350m a day lie) and people should be allowed to decide once they know and understand the true situation. So what are your reasons for excluding that option? because we've already had a referendum on the question of in or out, why should we have another just because the majority of politicians didn't like the result? because it's not the politicians that count, the majority of the population don't like the result. You don't believe me? Then let's have a referendum and prove it. Are people not allowed to change their minds, especially over such an important issue? Especially when there's such a cock up, the process so far is a shambles? Politicians are only concerned with their own short term future. It cannot be left to them.
|
|