Re: Brexit
 

Have the government committed to replacing those funds when they have been lost? Essentially cutting out the middle man (the EU) and funding those projects directly? I've seen nothing to suggest they've even promised to look at doing that.

Re: Brexit
 

Does it require the Queen officially? I can't see her being willing to suspend Parliament for political reasons.

Re: Brexit
 

Mick has already said it but it bears repeating: there is no such thing as EU funds. We are a net contributor by quite some margin. Every penny spent in Wales (yet with that disingenuous blue flag forcibly glued to it), can be more than matched by spending from the U.K. government or by the devolved executive.

Nope. The question on the ballot was debated at length, across a variety of media. Sooner or later you’re going to have to accept that a national debate took place yet at the end of it, most people disagreed with you.

Re: Brexit
 

Yes they have, I suggest you go look.

BREAKING: People's Vote MPs consisting of Cross Party support announce this morning they WILL NOT be tabling an Amendment next week for a Second Referendum.



---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

I have explained several pages ago there is two ways the Queen could act at the advice of her Government, she won't act if they do not advise her to.

One is not to give Royal Assent to any Backbench or opposition Bill. No Royal Assent, means it does not become law, the other is proroguing of Parliament, it is not covered in the Fixed term parliament act and is legally possible.

Re: Brexit
 

How can they make such a pledge? That’s a matter for party manifestos at the election following our departure from the EU when, for the first time in a generation, regional development will be an issue for British voters choosing a British government (actually a fair chunk of it is likely to be found to be within the competence of the devolved administrations so it will become an election issue in Wales, Scotland and NI as well).

Remainers are continually setting up pointless strawmen like this. The referendum was not an election and the debate was not a series of pledges or manifesto launches. It was about deciding where the power to make decisions over the U.K. should rest, and it was about the consequences of those decisions presently being taken elsewhere (such as limited control over immigration, the EU’s ability to demand additional billions from the U.K. while we’re powerless to object, its ability to set market regulations that may not suit us, to decide who we can trade with and on what terms ... the list goes on).

Re: Brexit
 

I can't see the Queen doing anything considered improper or setting herself up against Parliament though. Even if it's the Government asking her to do it. She protects the institution too much and this is country isn't really split on the question of the Monarchy so why risk that?

Re: Brexit
 

She's done it before...

Re: Brexit
 

Yet again you miss the point. You are naive to believe that this Government will replace these funds on a like-for-like basis.

Sooner or later you’re going to have to accept that No Deal was not on the ballot paper and there is no mandate for such. "Most" people (also known as 37% of the electorate) did not vote to be poorer.

Re: Brexit
 

I make no judgement about whether this government will replace those funds. I will judge the party manifestos on this issue in 2021 (if not sooner), when structural funding will be a British election issue for the first time in a generation. That’s what Brexit is for. That is the point.

Seriously, this again .... we debated a range of outcomes. The leave campaign generally outlined the opportunities while the remain campaign highlighted the risks (occasionally they agreed what would happen but disagreed over whether it was a good thing, e.g. our departure from the customs union).

There is a simple mandate to leave the EU. The referendum question was not qualified or limited in any way, so it is a nonsense to claim that there is no mandate for one consequence or another.

Re: Brexit
 

Of the two sides Leave was the one making claims about "the easiest deal ever" and similar expectations. Not quite working out as planned and I for one feel conned by Leave and their misdirection in the name of winning.

Re: Brexit
 

Really? :shocked:

When was this?

Re: Brexit
 

Before we were born, so my recollection is patchy, iirc she suspended then dismissed the Australian PM and dissolved their parliament in the mid '70's due to some constitutional crisis or other

Re: Brexit
 

Do you mean this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_A...utional_crisis

Re: Brexit
 

But it’s ok to risk Democracy?

It is not improper. It would be legally possible. She would be protecting her people and restore the Democratic foundations being abused by Remainer MPs in parliament ignoring the will of the Electorate.

Re: Brexit
 

This leak from the Civil Service obtained by Sky News just shows why many MP's are so against a No Deal: