![]() |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ---------- Quote:
But ........it’s just that her deal is pretty crap. I would be amazed if her deal, unless transformed by EU Capitulation would get through. |
Re: Brexit
I never wanted to live in interesting times. I still don't.
|
Re: Brexit
Suggestion here that if Theresa May gets the DUP back on board, she may then get sufficient votes from her party to get her deal through.
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
She might do.
As I said earlier the fact she is immune for a year from a Conservative vote of no confidence means that the ERG and allies do not have an easy way of taking control and forcing no deal. For Brexiters the risk of a 'softer' Brexit or no Brexit is now higher should her deal fail than it was before the letters went in. For ages the ERG held that card over her head as leverage but now that leverage is gone and May herself knows that Brexit is probably the last, and only, thing she'll do as PM in the short time she has remaining. Whose going to stop her if she choses anything but no deal? Parliament? They want a softer Brexit than she does. The Cabinet? See above, few no dealers in her cabinet. ERG? Took their chance, missed. Tory rebels brining down their own government? Maybe, but do they get a form a no deal Government with Parliament being so Remainy? |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Ending freedom of movement, and ending aspirational net migration targets. What’s going on here then?
|
Re: Brexit
What's next building a wall?
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
I see all the usual suspects sniping from the sidelines here.
Fact is that the Referendum delivered a LEAVE result. It looks like TM is going to respect that vote one way or the other. That Parliament is "Remainy" just goes to show how undemocratic they are and as for the ERG, they need to withdraw their horns and do everything to assist the correct democratic outcome. LEAVE. |
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Members of the House of Commons have a triple mandate - they represent all the people of their constituency, their party and the interests of the country. It is a tenet of representative democracy that MPs are not delegates for their constituents. This means that, while the views of constituents are frequently considered, the actions of MPs are governed by their determination of the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole. It was Edmund Burke who put it best, I think - the difference between a representative, who should take account of their constituents’ views but still use their own judgement in the legislature, and a delegate, who simple mirrors their constituents’ views. In his 1774 speech to the electors at Bristol at the conclusion of the poll that elected him he explained what would come to be known as Burkean representation: Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
Re: Brexit
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:53. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum