|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 29, 2018 2:31:08 GMT 1
They already dumped her, in effect - otherwise she wouldn't have survived the challenge. She had to assure them she wouldn't lead into another election. I cannot imagine how she'd possibly get around that assurance - constitutionally (Party), she could try to brave it out, but what a rumpus it would cause. How could she excuse and justify it? I don't think it could happen - I think for a start enough constituency organisations would simply refuse to campaign with her as a leader. Enough party MPs would tell her whips, and anyone else who would listen, she had to go. There's a limit to anyone's deluded megalomania, as even Mugabe discovered. I either heard her or her people say she wouldn't lead the Tories into the scheduled 2022 election. This doesn't rule out her standing in a snap election, early next year say, either at her choice (effectively) or forced by Parliament. As they tell us 1922 proceedings are private, no-one can rely on unsubstantiated leaks. I heard him two or so years ago saying he wasn't fit to lead. Nonsense. He was quoting, jokingly, if I think I know the speech you're referring to. Otherwise - you're nuts. The obvious sophistry you're referring to won't wash, even if there's any truth in it. Everyone knows what she meant. There'd be a grass roots rebellion before she could lead into another election again. On what grounds? No, I don't - even if he did, it doesn't matter, that not being the American electoral system. You - people like you, he might "shit over", not us. People like "us" voted to leave the EU.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Dec 29, 2018 2:37:22 GMT 1
I'm almost lost for words.
Not only dangerously divisive, but ignorant too.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 29, 2018 2:38:14 GMT 1
I'm almost lost for words. Not only dangerously divisive, but ignorant too. Ignorant about what? Pray, enlighten us.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 29, 2018 2:50:30 GMT 1
I'm almost lost for words. Not only dangerously divisive, but ignorant too. Just the usual empty post. devoid of any content except insult. New Year coming up, Aqua - are you going to resolve to engage your brain for a change?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Dec 29, 2018 2:59:56 GMT 1
This is what you wrote:
You - people like you, he might "shit over", not us. People like "us" voted to leave the EU.
As far as I'm concerned, that's ignorance from a professedly highly intelligent person.
Not clever enough to want to lessen the divide, but stupid enough to want to widen it.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 29, 2018 3:05:55 GMT 1
This is what you wrote: You - people like you, he might "shit over", not us. People like "us" voted to leave the EU.
As far as I'm concerned, that's ignorance from a professedly highly intelligent person. ignorance of what? the majority of people who voted voted to leave the EU. Fact. Having a PM who also wants to leave the EU, and follows through on that decision, doesn't "widen the divide", as far as I can see. Having a PM who doesn't want to, and who totally fails to do so on any meaningful basis, is what "widens the divide", in my opinion. I repeat: are you going to turn over a new leaf, or are you going to continue insulting people you disagree with in every post?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Dec 29, 2018 3:17:37 GMT 1
Are you going to reflect on your own behaviour at all? Ever?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 29, 2018 3:20:18 GMT 1
Are you going to reflect on your own behaviour at all? Ever? Not really - I've laid out my modus operandi enough times, I can't be bothered again. You slap me, I'll slap you harder. Simple as that, really. Otherwise -you want to have a reasonable discussion,, let's go, I think I can take you on a trip. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 29, 2018 16:54:08 GMT 1
Funny how remoaners talk about a divided nation. No such thing -at least no more divided than after a general election. We had a vote on one subject, and came to a clear decision. Democracy is about everyone accepting the majority vote/Labour government/shareholders' decison, whatever, because doing anything else simply increases the number of divisions until you end up with a multifaceted civil war (see "Life of Brian", as currently playing in Syria, Iraq, Iran....) and civilisation goes down the toilet.
Europhiles had 50 years, almost the entire population of continental Europe, and an effectively unlimited budget, to prove their point. That's a lot longer than most board meetings, and a lot bigger budget to get things right than any company can afford. When finally put to the vote, the shareholders said the EU project (and only that project) was a waste of money and demanded that the Board pulled the plug. We'd seen what happens to Greece, Italy and Spain, and there is still time for any unconvinced Europhiles to set up shop sur le continong whilst they have the right to do so. But I don't see the exodus. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 29, 2018 18:37:16 GMT 1
Funny how remoaners talk about a divided nation. No such thing -at least no more divided than after a general election. We had a vote on one subject, and came to a clear decision. Democracy is about everyone accepting the majority vote/Labour government/shareholders' decison, whatever, because doing anything else simply increases the number of divisions until you end up with a multifaceted civil war (see "Life of Brian", as currently playing in Syria, Iraq, Iran....) and civilisation goes down the toilet. Europhiles had 50 years, almost the entire population of continental Europe, and an effectively unlimited budget, to prove their point. That's a lot longer than most board meetings, and a lot bigger budget to get things right than any company can afford. When finally put to the vote, the shareholders said the EU project (and only that project) was a waste of money and demanded that the Board pulled the plug. We'd seen what happens to Greece, Italy and Spain, and there is still time for any unconvinced Europhiles to set up shop sur le continong whilst they have the right to do so. But I don't see the exodus. Why not? Hear hear - or here, here, I can never remember which it's supposed to be - good post. There is a serious diviion inthe country, of course, but it's not about Brexit - that issue merely overlaps the divide that already existed, and brings it out into clear light. The division is between working people and people who subsist off their labour. The EU is manifestly against the interests of people who earn their living, and promotes the interests of those who do not. That's why it's collapsing, its economy shrinking, with millions of working people protesting on its streets and in the ballots.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jan 1, 2019 2:06:47 GMT 1
Funny how remoaners talk about a divided nation. No such thing -at least no more divided than after a general election. We had a vote on one subject, and came to a clear decision. Democracy is about everyone accepting the majority vote/Labour government/shareholders' decison ... Maybe your repeated use of 'remoaners' rather than Remainers is a sign of division, and a provocation to more. Tho a Remainer, I don't moan. I've said several times here I accept the result, and don't want another referendum. For the time being, I'm a happy bunny. I've always said the idea of the 2016 referendum was an exceedingly badly baked cake. Unfortunately, no-one can unbake it now, and we're Left - as it were - with a soggy bottom. ( mrsonde screams: devoid of content devoid of content devoid of content devoid of content. Tell that to Mary Berry.)
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 1, 2019 10:23:53 GMT 1
I thought the result was crisp and well-formed: leave the EU.
There are 193 recognised member states of the United Nations, 166 of which are not members of the EU, so it can't be that difficult.
As a huge net contributor to (but not investor in) the EU, the UK was in a position to demand any concessions we wanted in exchange for the continuation of privileged EU access to our market, but none were sought or offered, and no preparation has been made for BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement - an acronym I haven't heard for about 20 years) despite the rules of the game being clearly set out by WTO and at least 10 years of growing public opinion implying that Brexit was a when, not an if.
So to pursue the analogy, the cake came out of the oven exactly as specified, but HM government sabotaged it with unnecessary icing.
If you want an alternative view, what do you do with a massively expensive, lopsided, overdecorated cake with a rotten core? Bin it and make another one. But HMG has just added more icing.
Meanwhile, I retract my comment about the non-exodus. Apparently some 200,000 Brits have applied for Irish passports in 2018, so there's an exodus on paper, at least. Something to do with having cake and eaing it, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 2, 2019 0:29:19 GMT 1
Funny how remoaners talk about a divided nation. No such thing -at least no more divided than after a general election. We had a vote on one subject, and came to a clear decision. Democracy is about everyone accepting the majority vote/Labour government/shareholders' decison ... Maybe your repeated use of 'remoaners' rather than Remainers is a sign of division, and a provocation to more. Tho a Remainer, I don't moan. I've said several times here I accept the result, and don't want another referendum. For the time being, I'm a happy bunny. I've always said the idea of the 2016 referendum was an exceedingly badly baked cake. Unfortunately, no-one can unbake it now, and we're Left - as it were - with a soggy bottom. ( mrsonde screams: devoid of content devoid of content devoid of content devoid of content. Tell that to Mary Berry.) I never scream. I sort of...scowl, and glint a bit, if you're feeling lucky. Think of me like Clint Eastwood, circa 1970, not Janet Leigh. The trouble with your content, when you do remember to include any, is it's always so inedibly wrong. Remainers started moaning from day one, and haven't stopped since. You saw that clip from Question Time I posted a few weeks ago> Anna Soubry emphatically insisting, in 2014, that the people should be given the choice, In or Out? And Hammond, saying if he was given the vote - as the Tories were promising at that point, in a bid to stymie UKIP, he'd vote to leave, because the EU wasn't good for our economy? And I clearly remember the choice being very clear and clearly distinguished, thanks, from both sides, from all the principal players in either campaign: Leaving would mean leaving the Customs Union, leaving the Single Market, leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ, ceasing paying into the EU, and able to do trade deals with the rest of the world. The rest was arguable - and still is, as far as I'm concerned, as much as the Vote campaign love to say so much "we know the facts of the matter now." No you don't - all you know is your usual doom-mongering predictions.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jan 2, 2019 1:42:35 GMT 1
I thought the result was crisp and well-formed: leave the EU. Good. But I was talking about the run-up: no declaration of ingredients, method, or the existence of nuts. Null and void.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jan 2, 2019 1:54:26 GMT 1
And I clearly remember the choice being very clear and clearly distinguished, thanks, from both sides, from all the principal players in either campaign: Leaving would mean leaving the Customs Union, leaving the Single Market, leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ, ceasing paying into the EU, and able to do trade deals with the rest of the world. The rest was arguable - and still is, as far as I'm concerned, as much as the Vote campaign love to say so much "we know the facts of the matter now." No you don't - all you know is your usual doom-mongering predictions. And I clearly remember the opposite. Surely Leavers should've taken pity on us Devon-Donkey-Wormers, and explained it all to them. Not that you needed to. DDWs tend not to look forward.
|
|