Log In
Register
7.53am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
While Foreign Secretary may be ranked as the third of the four Great Offices of State, @Wigwam, it does not guarantee any particular level of involvement in the Brexit negotiations or the negotiating stance.
This is clearly illustrated by Theresa May’s negotiation of her three-times rejected Withdrawal Agreement, which was completely run from 10 Downing Street (seeing her lose two Brexit Secretaries because she was doing their job and they felt cut out of the process).
Her Foreign Secretary for some time was Boris Johnson, who was one of several ministers who quit the Cabinet in July 2018 in response to the Chequers Plan which was wholly formulated by the PMs team without the involvement of any other of the Great Offices of State.
Being Foreign Secretary didn’t give Boris any greater involvement in formulating May’s Brexit negotiating position, him first seeing it – along with the rest of the Cabinet – at Chequers on 6 July.
So, to claim being Foreign Secretary would guarantee Emily Thornberry a more prominent voice in the approach taken by any future Labour Government is shown to be false by the lack of involvement Boris, as Foreign Secretary, had in formulating Theresa May’s approach.
In the end, it is the Prime Minister’s office who decides who they will involve in formulating any particular policy, and in the case of Brexit, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was not one of those May chose to consult, leading to his resignation when he finally did see her plan.
So, the suggestion that Emily Thornberry would definitely have a major voice as holder of the third Great Office of State is proved wrong by the lack of involvement Boris had when holding the same office.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.10am
17 October 2013
Offline QuarryMan said
Emily Thornberry herself would not be deciding the result of a second referendum, though. She’d vote to remain, but it would make no sense for her not to put effort into a deal just because of that, because it’s highly likely that the country would vote to leave anyway. The metaphor of the car selling would work more like this: the buyer doesn’t want a car while their family do, so if they are going to buy a car, they might as well buy the most tolerable/best car they can.
I can agree with your first statement you’ve successfully grasped what a referendum is…….
You argue that it would make no sense for a devoted remainer like Ms Thornberry…..Who’s remained a remainer not to put every effort into forging a good deal to leave……I’d argue that it would make no sense for a remainer to push for any deal that makes remaining less attractive to the British public than leaving…..In terms of loyalties putting Thornberry and co’ in charge of negotiations would be akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Your car version of the analogy has already played itself through……The family….. (17.4 million of them) voted for a new one.…Dad who wants to keep his old car has said many times, ‘Yes alright you can have one’…..But he’s done everything he can to overturn and wreck any chance of a ‘deal’ on a new car and goes on his breaking promises …..It clearly doesn’t matter what his family wants ‘Daddy Parliament’ knows best…..By hook or by crook, by dither, delay weasel words and outright skullbuggery, (f*****g with our minds) he’s making sure…….His family ain’t gonna get even a sniff of what they want……
9.25am
17 October 2013
Offline Ron Nasty said
While Foreign Secretary may be ranked as the third of the four Great Offices of State, @Wigwam, it does not guarantee any particular level of involvement in the Brexit negotiations or the negotiating stance.This is clearly illustrated by Theresa May’s negotiation of her three-times rejected Withdrawal Agreement, which was completely run from 10 Downing Street (seeing her lose two Brexit Secretaries because she was doing their job and they felt cut out of the process).
Her Foreign Secretary for some time was Boris Johnson, who was one of several ministers who quit the Cabinet in July 2018 in response to the Chequers Plan which was wholly formulated by the PMs team without the involvement of any other of the Great Offices of State.
Being Foreign Secretary didn’t give Boris any greater involvement in formulating May’s Brexit negotiating position, him first seeing it – along with the rest of the Cabinet – at Chequers on 6 July.
So, to claim being Foreign Secretary would guarantee Emily Thornberry a more prominent voice in the approach taken by any future Labour Government is shown to be false by the lack of involvement Boris, as Foreign Secretary, had in formulating Theresa May’s approach.
In the end, it is the Prime Minister’s office who decides who they will involve in formulating any particular policy, and in the case of Brexit, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was not one of those May chose to consult, leading to his resignation when he finally did see her plan.
So, the suggestion that Emily Thornberry would definitely have a major voice as holder of the third Great Office of State is proved wrong by the lack of involvement Boris had when holding the same office.
It’s true that Collective Responsibility has taken a pasting in recent years…….May was a woefully poor PM.
However, over the hundreds of preceding years Collective Responsibility has been the prevailing principle…..Only if that truly isn’t the case anymore would it be reasonable to suggest that the Foreign Secretary’s views would be discounted. Going on what you’re suggesting ie… that May’s handling of affaires sets a precedent then Keir Starmer might also be a redundant figure and only Corbyn and his closest allies…….( Thornberry of course counts as one of those) would be calling the tune…..In which case Thornberry’s influence would, if anything, be magnified…..
All this is of course is a matter of ‘ifs’ and suppositions………A case of…… ‘If my aunty had bollocks she’d be my uncle’
9.37am
17 October 2013
Offline While some pro-remain may not agree with this presenter…..This 13 min vid contains some of the points I’ve been referring to in my posts above…..
Perhaps for non-Brits this might make the personalities and the arguments clearer……..
Also notice RN how Thornberry says herself ……’I will negotiate to the best of my ability’...She clearly doesn’t see herself as a peripheral figure in any EU negotiations………..
9.56am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline No, this is different from Collective Responsibility (which completely fell apart under May). Collective Responsibility refers to no Ministers publicly expressing dissent from Government policy once the direction of travel has been set. It says nothing about how that policy is arrived at or who is involved in formulating that policy.
The same disagreements over policy have happened in nearly every Government in history, and policy is often decided by a small group of people around the Prime Minister, and all Collective Responsibility means is that Ministers won’t publicly disagree with policies they privately disagree with.
There is also another aspect to consider with the Labour Party: when in Opposition the Shadow Cabinet is elected by the membership, but when in Government the PM appoints the Cabinet, and there are many examples of Labour PMs not giving everyone in the Shadow Cabinet a place in Cabinet, or not giving them the same job as they had in the Shadow Cabinet.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
12.02pm
11 September 2018
Offline A family of five are arguing about whether or not to buy a new car. Mum and daughter are happy with the one they have. Dad and two sons want a new one.
Perhaps reluctantly, Mum is persuaded to go to the local Garage and see what they have in stock. She comes back with a list of four cars – one convertible, one hatchback, one SUV and one saloon. She tells the family these are the only four cars the Garage have for sale. They can either sell their current car and get one of these four. Or, if they can’t decide which car they want buy by March 31st, they can sell their current car and rely on public transport.
They agree to have a vote to determine which one they should buy. Mum tries to persuade them that the best deal would be to get the SUV. The daughter doesn’t think the family needs a new car and refuses to choose any. Son #1 just wants a new car, so chooses all of them. Son #2 wants the convertible so picks that one, and Dad is convinced Mum hasn’t looked at all the cars in the garage and refuses to pick any on offer. Either way, no car has a majority and subsequently Mum is sent back to the Garage who agree to give the family until October 31st to get a new car.
Dad is convinced he’d do a better job of buying a new car and thus Mum steps down from negotiations. Dad promises the family that they’ll have a new car by October 31st. He even goes as far to say he’d rather no car than the one the family currently have.
A month goes by and the family ask Dad if he’s managed to find any more cars for sale. Son #1 assures them he’s working very hard, but refuses to show them what cars Dad has found. Dad then makes the decision to postpone the weekly family meetings until October 14th so the rest of the family can’t see which car Dad is planning to buy until it’s possibly too late. Son #1 reiterates Dad’s decision and tries to convince Mum and Daughter that this is nothing unusual and they’ll have plenty of time to look at, and discuss the benefits of each car after October 14th.
Mum, Daughter and now Son #2 aren’t convinced Dad has even looked for a new car and even think he actually just wants to rely on public transport. The family hold a meeting to determine who will have the final decision about which car the family will buy.
Son #1 spends the entire meeting asleep on the couch. Dad refuses to answer any questions and insults Daughter, calling her a chicken. Eventually, Dad and Son #1 are outvoted 3 to 2 and are told the family must agree on which car to buy, or else Dad will have to go back to the Garage and ask them to extend the offer until January 31st. Dad kicks Son #2 out of the family because he refused to take sides with Dad and Son #1.
Dad tells everybody he’d rather die in a ditch than keep the current car beyond October 31st. Son #1 blames the Garage for the fact the family don’t have a new car yet. Mum tells everybody the SUV was a perfectly acceptable car, but nobody listens to her. Daughter tells everybody who will listen that she still thinks the family should keep their current car and Son #2 thinks he would like a new car, but doesn’t want any of the cars on offer and would rather the family keep the current car than have to get the bus.
The following people thank Tony Japanese for this post:
Ron Nasty, The Hole Got Fixed2.35pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline 
Now that is a great precis of Brexit, @Tony Japanese. Thank you. 
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
6.08pm
26 January 2017
Offline Wigwam said
QuarryMan said
Emily Thornberry herself would not be deciding the result of a second referendum, though. She’d vote to remain, but it would make no sense for her not to put effort into a deal just because of that, because it’s highly likely that the country would vote to leave anyway. The metaphor of the car selling would work more like this: the buyer doesn’t want a car while their family do, so if they are going to buy a car, they might as well buy the most tolerable/best car they can.
I can agree with your first statement you’ve successfully grasped what a referendum is…….
You argue that it would make no sense for a devoted remainer like Ms Thornberry…..Who’s remained a remainer not to put every effort into forging a good deal to leave……I’d argue that it would make no sense for a remainer to push for any deal that makes remaining less attractive to the British public than leaving…..In terms of loyalties putting Thornberry and co’ in charge of negotiations would be akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Your car version of the analogy has already played itself through……The family….. (17.4 million of them) voted for a new one.…Dad who wants to keep his old car has said many times, ‘Yes alright you can have one’…..But he’s done everything he can to overturn and wreck any chance of a ‘deal’ on a new car and goes on his breaking promises …..It clearly doesn’t matter what his family wants ‘Daddy Parliament’ knows best…..By hook or by crook, by dither, delay weasel words and outright skullbuggery, (f*****g with our minds) he’s making sure…….His family ain’t gonna get even a sniff of what they want……
Well for a start Ms Thornberry hasn’t been forging the deal, since she isn’t in the government. Ms Thornberry’s will =/= the will of Parliament.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
WigwamI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
6.47pm
17 October 2013
Offline QuarryMan said
Wigwam said
QuarryMan said
Emily Thornberry herself would not be deciding the result of a second referendum, though. She’d vote to remain, but it would make no sense for her not to put effort into a deal just because of that, because it’s highly likely that the country would vote to leave anyway. The metaphor of the car selling would work more like this: the buyer doesn’t want a car while their family do, so if they are going to buy a car, they might as well buy the most tolerable/best car they can.
I can agree with your first statement you’ve successfully grasped what a referendum is…….
You argue that it would make no sense for a devoted remainer like Ms Thornberry…..Who’s remained a remainer not to put every effort into forging a good deal to leave……I’d argue that it would make no sense for a remainer to push for any deal that makes remaining less attractive to the British public than leaving…..In terms of loyalties putting Thornberry and co’ in charge of negotiations would be akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Your car version of the analogy has already played itself through……The family….. (17.4 million of them) voted for a new one.…Dad who wants to keep his old car has said many times, ‘Yes alright you can have one’…..But he’s done everything he can to overturn and wreck any chance of a ‘deal’ on a new car and goes on his breaking promises …..It clearly doesn’t matter what his family wants ‘Daddy Parliament’ knows best…..By hook or by crook, by dither, delay weasel words and outright skullbuggery, (f*****g with our minds) he’s making sure…….His family ain’t gonna get even a sniff of what they want……
Well for a start Ms Thornberry hasn’t been forging the deal, since she isn’t in the government. Ms Thornberry’s will =/= the will of Parliament.
Well to me….sounds more like an exhausted end to the discussion than a, ‘for a start….’
Have a nice nice holiday my friend…..Enjoy every day and pick up some things in the US that are not easy to find or are double the price in merry Olde England.
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Beatlebug, QuarryMan6.59pm
17 October 2013
Offline Ron Nasty said
No, this is different from Collective Responsibility (which completely fell apart under May). Collective Responsibility refers to no Ministers publicly expressing dissent from Government policy once the direction of travel has been set. It says nothing about how that policy is arrived at or who is involved in formulating that policy.The same disagreements over policy have happened in nearly every Government in history, and policy is often decided by a small group of people around the Prime Minister, and all Collective Responsibility means is that Ministers won’t publicly disagree with policies they privately disagree with.
There is also another aspect to consider with the Labour Party: when in Opposition the Shadow Cabinet is elected by the membership, but when in Government the PM appoints the Cabinet, and there are many examples of Labour PMs not giving everyone in the Shadow Cabinet a place in Cabinet, or not giving them the same job as they had in the Shadow Cabinet.
Indeed but collective responsibility is more than not just making public statements……It’s about collectively all serving members of the Cabinet accepting full credit/blame/responsibility……With the PM as ‘Primus inter pares’….
Yes Thotnberry could be dropped from Corbyn’s cabinet before she ever gets her feet under the table……Or she won’t….?? To that extent we don’t know….All we can do is look at likely outcomes……We know her current Job…..We know she has stood-in for Corbyn at PMQs when it’s been called for…..And specifically with regard to Brexit we know her statements, her voting pattern and her own expectations if/when she serves in Government
If you’ve watched her over the last few years you know she expects to be in the actual cabinet and she said herself….’I will negotiate the best deal possible……And then vote against it’
From the horse’s mouth you might say.
11.42pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Yet John McDonnell, Corbyn’s #2, shadow chancellor, and long time ally, said after Thornberry’s appearance on Question Time, that they may not renegotiate, instead offering Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement vs. Remain to a referendum.
So, 52 days to the next Brexit deadline, and Boris has prorogued Parliament for 35 of them.
Opposition MPs were talking about not going into recess for the Party Conferences as they usually do, but continuing to sit. Instead Boris has prorogued Parliament, and there is a big difference.
Firstly, even had they decided to go into recess, the House of Lords could continue to sit as could Parliament’s Standing Committees – which could question Ministers, including the Prime Minister, about what was happening with Brexit. Instead he has prorogued, which closes down the House of Lords and the Standing Committees, allowing his Government to escape questions at this time of Constitutional crisis.
This is on the day when Boris, our Prime Minister (unfortunately) stood at the dispatch box and stated he would break the law by refusing to ask for the extension to 31 January that is law. Should he do that, I wonder if a sitting Prime Minister has ever been sent to jail, not passing go or collecting his wage?
Boris has been PM since July, but with the Summer recess, has only faced Prime Minister’s Questions once, last week, when he didn’t answer a single question, but instead bluffed and blustered.
And it isn’t like no deal solves ANYTHING.
As Irish PM, Leo Varadkar said standing next to him today:
If there is no deal, I believe that’s possible, it will cause severe disruption for British and Irish people alike. We will have to get back to the negotiating table. When we do, the first and only items on the agenda will be citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the Irish border. All the issues we had resolved in the withdrawal agreement we made with your predecessor. An agreement made in good faith by 28 governments.
Boris squirmed alongside him at those words because he knows that is exactly what will happen if we go out on no deal.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
1.32am
17 October 2013
Offline The irony from my point of view is that Boris is the one actually defending democracy…….There was a referendum….’Leave or stay’ were the choices…..nothing about acceptable terms in the vote
Leave won….end of…..or should have been.
Ah well…… roll on the next election…Let’s hope it’s decisive …..Preferably of course from my perspective a majority for leave……Like last time.
At least Bercow will be gone…….Nauseating, pompous prig.
5.53am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline How is democracy defended by a Prime Minister closing down Parliament at such a critical time, @Wigwam?
How is democracy defended by a Prime Minister saying he will not obey UK law?
However much Brexiters like to proclaim they won, they did so with less than 40% of the electorate voting that way. So, not a majority.
The Speaker has been brilliant in giving backbenchers their rightful voice, and also brilliant in announcing the timing of his departure. He has ensured that the next Speaker will most likely have the same approach to the role of Speaker that he has had since the rump of Conservative Party no longer has the votes to get the Speaker of their choice, a Speaker who would not represent backbench and opposition voices – which is the job of the Speaker.
The most likely outcome of the election of a new Speaker will be that they will follow a similar path to his time in the chair because they will be elected by this Parliament, and not the next Parliament.
Speaker Bercow has redefined the role of Speaker, which is likely to be followed by the next Speaker as they will be elected by this Parliament, and this Parliament likes having an interventionist Speaker.
I might (though doubtful) have more respect for opportunist Boris if he was seriously trying to get a deal but, as Leo Varadkar said yesterday, he has offered nothing new, nothing but bluff and bluster.
Myself, I do kind of hope for a no deal Brexit, accepting it will be damaging, and much more damaging to me than it will be for you.
I’d like to see how Brexiters feel about losing the advantages of being a part of the club. A hard Brexit, in my opinion, would see us – by referendum – looking to rejoin within a decade.
The main shame would be that in leaving we will never be able to re-enter on the preferential terms we have now.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
6.33am
Members
18 March 2013
Offline Might as well pop in and give my thoughts on Varadkar. I don’t like him, I don’t like his party, he’s ignoring the housing crisis in the major cities and is doing nothing to help the overcrowding in hospitals, he is constantly pandering towards young people by every time he gets bad press he goes “we might legalise weed”, but dammit if he isn’t doing a good job with Brexit, not allowing the UK to treat us like dirt.
I also want to curse Brexit for being seemingly the only bloody thing I’m going studying in economics this semester, so….thanks lads.
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
8.14am
17 October 2013
Offline Ron Nasty said
How is democracy defended by a Prime Minister closing down Parliament at such a critical time, @Wigwam?How is democracy defended by a Prime Minister saying he will not obey UK law?
However much Brexiters like to proclaim they won, they did so with less than 40% of the electorate voting that way. So, not a majority.
The Speaker has been brilliant in giving backbenchers their rightful voice, and also brilliant in announcing the timing of his departure. He has ensured that the next Speaker will most likely have the same approach to the role of Speaker that he has had since the rump of Conservative Party no longer has the votes to get the Speaker of their choice, a Speaker who would not represent backbench and opposition voices – which is the job of the Speaker.
The most likely outcome of the election of a new Speaker will be that they will follow a similar path to his time in the chair because they will be elected by this Parliament, and not the next Parliament.
Speaker Bercow has redefined the role of Speaker, which is likely to be followed by the next Speaker as they will be elected by this Parliament, and this Parliament likes having an interventionist Speaker.
I might (though doubtful) have more respect for opportunist Boris if he was seriously trying to get a deal but, as Leo Varadkar said yesterday, he has offered nothing new, nothing but bluff and bluster.
Myself, I do kind of hope for a no deal Brexit, accepting it will be damaging, and much more damaging to me than it will be for you.
I’d like to see how Brexiters feel about losing the advantages of being a part of the club. A hard Brexit, in my opinion, would see us – by referendum – looking to rejoin within a decade.
The main shame would be that in leaving we will never be able to re-enter on the preferential terms we have now.
A democratic vote was held…The Parliament has on several occasions promised to uphold that vote while in practice at every turn remainers have conspired and connived to confound the result of that democratic vote. Democracies work on the principle of clear majorities and importantly ‘losers consent’ do they not??……Instead for purely political advantage, the unashamed pursuit of power and personal preference….. whatever the effect on the country…. they have undermined negotiations and in effect sided with our direct adversaries in those negotiations….I’ll add that Bercow has done all within his power to aide and abet the referendum wreckers.
17.4 million voted to leave…..It was the biggest democratic vote in the UK’s history….The vote has through deception lies and weasel words been ignored. Boris is attempting to implement that democratic decision…….He’s defending a fair vote delivered by the British people who were promised whatever the result the vote would be would be it would be heard and parliament would implement it……..Either way!!!
As for perogation…. Parliament will lose perhaps 5 days extra than it might have otherwise…After 3 years of debate, are 5 days worth the faux hue and cry of the hypocrites on either side of the House…..Their bleating rings hollow.
Bercow is not acting in some instances as a Speaker but from his personal stance……….He has pushed his role and his powers too far…..Overstepping the mark set by generations of previous holders of that office.
‘As Jacob Rees–Mogg has said quoting the words of the very distinguished and importantly impartial Speaker…. Lenthall…’Who said himself of his role and duties ‘The Speaker of the House of Commons… should have no tongue with which to speak or eyes with which to see other than is directed by the House. … and therefore much of what Bercow has said must be said in a personal capacity not as Mr Speaker.’
It’s clearly not for the Speaker to redefine for himself his role and take on powers he doesn’t have or abandon his overriding responsibly to be completely impartial….Decisions of that nature must be for the House to decide ….When a Speaker loses the trust of one side or the other his authority is tainted forever…….Bercow is now a national disgrace.
You say this Parliament likes having an interventionist Speaker……..I don’t believe that…….Perhaps the ones who feel his interventions suit their politics and to whom has been helpful to their undemocratic intentions……I’ll give you that perhaps they do…..A future Speaker who might intervene but with a different view to them won’t be so well regarded. Speakers have always been should remain impartial and completely unaligned…….
That’s what the current Conservative front bench want to reassert…..An impartial umpire not one that favours either side…..Pointedly not the openly biased self-publicising abomination of a Speaker that Bercow has become.
I don’t know what the point of another referendum would be when we haven’t implemented the first one……Also I don’t know how another General Election would unfold….. let’s see……Either you or I might be in for a disappointment …..I’ll accept it whatever…..Will you?
As for effects of what you call a ‘hard brexit’ and I call ‘leaving as promised’ would have on you and me personally…….I have seen the GBP drop steadily and recently more steeply from 68 baht to the pound to 36 baht to the pound. That decrease has been directly linked to discussions of Brexit and May’s dithering…..My savings in the UK that have got to see me through my dotage have therefore been halved in value……Quite a hit…..My pension was fixed at the level I first qualified and because I live in Thailand it will never be adjusted for inflation…..
I gain nothing from Brexit directly..I ONLY lose……. However the return of sovereignty to the country I still love would be worth that loss to me…..I ain’t complaining mate…..Have you suffered more? Please do tell.
When an election comes, or a referendum I will vote again for leave despite the damage that’s been done to me personally…..Some things are more important and I honestly in any case remain optimistic that once the nettle’s grasped the world’s 5th largest economy and a historically powerful trading nation will seize the opportunities and advantages offered from our independence…….
10.37am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Aha, the 17.4 million line… the biggest democratic vote in our history…
It’s a fake line… Sorry, but as I’ve said elsewhere, 17.4 million voting leave only reflects a larger population. The turnout was just over 72%, lower than many General Elections, and counting the whole Electorate, the leave vote came in at 37.48%. In the last 50 years, both Thatcher and Blair got a higher percentage of the Electorate and larger turnouts.
Most of our votes, as you well know, are done with at least a half-dozen options. The last nationwide Yes/No vote was in 1975. In multi-choice votes, on higher turnouts, both Thatcher and Blair achieved over 40% voting for them when counting the whole Electorate.
So, sorry, other votes have won the support of larger percentages of the Electorate on higher turnouts than was managed by the 37.48% who voted leave.
The second highest vote in our history, just looking at the numbers rather than the percentages, was the remain vote.
It’s really simple, larger populations equal more voters. It’s the percentages that matter, and leave only managed to get the support of 37.48% of the Electorate, meaning that over 60% of the Electorate, whether by voting remain or abstaining, did not actively support our leaving.
On your point about accepting the result of a General Election or second referendum, I would accept the result of a second referendum but not a General Election as a General Election is – or should be – about more that Brexit.
And as for perogation only losing around five days, that assumes the Opposition would not have voted not to recess as usual for the party conference season, and that the House of Lords and the Standing Committees would not have continued to sit through the House of Commons recess (which they usually do). Boris was due to appear before the Liaison Committee on Wednesday. He could have perogued on Thursday, but perogued last night to avoid that questioning by suspending the Standing Committees for 35 of the 52 days remaining until the next Brexit deadline.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.22pm
17 October 2013
Offline So apart from some unnecessarily laboured equivocation regarding a naturally larger population……meaning that the vote leave remains as I said in terms of pure numbers the greatest democratic exercise in our history you agree…….Good…..I had confidence you would.
A decisive election either way would seal Brexit’s fate….A hung Parliament?? Hope not ( 2-1 to England as I write kane again)…….
Unless Brexit has been resolved the next election will be about Brexit…….No getting away from it.
As for perogation about time we had a Queen’s speech and Parliament got on with other matters don’t you think?…..Labour has been calling for one ages and another election and then when perogation comes along and the offer of another election??? …..So with time for introducing the Queen’s speech and the conference season not much time lost…….. they’ve had 3 years after all…..
You didn’t mention how you believe Brexit will affect you…..As I said, no if’s or buts the value of my life savings has been halved. I’m hoping that’s not a permanent state of affairs. Still you could argue, as they would here…’Som nam na dua eng’…That’s it’s my own fault so no sympathy….And I’m not looking for any
The football’s calling so I’m sure we will chat again later
Cheers
PS Glad your lap-top’s back in action…..
England 3 now.
4.02pm
11 September 2018
Offline Brexit has been on the agenda for three years. In those three years, two Prime Ministers have resigned (Cameron and May) and the third has made no further progress. There have been three Secretaries of State for Exiting the European Union; three Chief Negotiators; three Ministers of State. None of them have set out to do what they’ve promised.
Of course, none of them will accept any blame because it’s always somebody else’s fault – whether that be Bercow, the EU, Remainers. It doesn’t matter, MPs would sooner eat their own underwear than admit they’ve not achieved their objectives. I’ve no doubt those who are saying ‘good riddance’ to Bercow would be hoisting him on their shoulders if he’d been on their side, or perhaps allowed Theresa May to put the same proposal forward for as many times as it was necessary until the vote went in her favour.
Remember though, it’s not just the ‘weasel words’ of Remainers who have so far ‘blocked’ Brexit. Theresa May did all she could to get that vote over the line – including postponing it in December when she knew she wouldn’t succeed. A number of MPs who voted Leave, voted against May’s Meaningful Vote (including Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, who both rejected it twice, only to then change their mind a third time).
Personally, I want my MPs to vote with their conscience and make their decision based on the facts they have been provided with. Unfortunately too many MPs are more concerned for their careers or their own affairs and couldn’t give a monkey’s about their constituency.
Personally, I think all votes should be anonymous and not dictated by Whips, and they should scrap the archaic system of going into separate rooms. If your in favour of a proposal, accept it. If you’re not, reject it.
When I am PM, you will be first against the wall.
The following people thank Tony Japanese for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed6.10pm
26 January 2017
Offline At this stage I just want it to be resolved one way or another so the government can go back to… you know… governing….
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed, Dark OverlordI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
4.47am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline The Scottish Court of Session has ruled that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in proroging Parliament for five weeks!!!
A unanimous verdict by three judges who ruled that it was clearly done to prevent Parliament scrutinising the Government!!!
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
3 Guest(s)