[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[WATFORD zero]

To be fair to Jenrick, there appear to be quite a large number of Tories who were pro-Remain who post-2016 had a damascene conversion and realised the error of their ways. Even some of those who most loudly proclaim the wonder of Brexit today.

This was definitely because their views truly changed and was absolutely not because being pro-EU was good their career pre-2016 and being pro-Brexit was better afterwards. No sir. Perish the thought.

Only 24% of MPs of all parties campaigned for Leave. It was almost as if the 76% had some sort of insight into what would happen

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit-the-people-vs-parliament/

 

[dsr-burnley]

Accepting the referendum result is difficult when, taken to the Supreme Court, in February 2019, Sir James Eadie QC, for the government, accepted it was illegal.
Had the referendum result been mandatory, it would’ve been annulled, right then and there, but because it was only advisory, Referendum Act 2015, it couldn’t be annulled, but the government went ahead anyway, citing ‘the will of the people’.

All based on lies.

Illegal? In what sense? If it was a criminal offence to run the referendum, then perhaps David Cameron should have been prosecuted?

All elections are advisory. Is there any law to stop Starmer's government from leaving the ECHR, outlawing strikes, and raising income tax NIC corporation tax? No, because the election manifesto was advisory. It doesn't mean that standing by it is wrong.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Illegal? In what sense? If it was a criminal offence to run the referendum, then perhaps David Cameron should have been prosecuted?

All elections are advisory. Is there any law to stop Starmer's government from leaving the ECHR, outlawing strikes, and raising income tax NIC corporation tax? No, because the election manifesto was advisory. It doesn't mean that standing by it is wrong.

Illegal because of the lies. You may not want to believe that because you ‘won’, but that is the decision of the Supreme Court.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Illegal because of the lies. You may not want to believe that because you ‘won’, but that is the decision of the Supreme Court.

I think you've been misinformed. Google finds nothing. Have you got a link?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think you've been misinformed. Google finds nothing. Have you got a link?

Google.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Google.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

Sorry that was the other unlawful act the prorogation of Parliament. Give me a minute.

It was the Court of Appeal not the Supreme Court. The referendum result was not binding despite what politicians said.

Wilson & Ors , R (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister [2019] EWCA Civ 304 (04 March 2019)

Illegal because of overspending, and Russian interference

 

[dsr-burnley]

Sorry that was the other unlawful act the prorogation of Parliament. Give me a minute.

It was the Court of Appeal not the Supreme Court. The referendum result was not binding despite what politicians said.

Wilson & Ors , R (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister [2019] EWCA Civ 304 (04 March 2019)

Illegal because of overspending, and Russian interferenceView attachment 190299

Why have you quoted a report that states that the referendum result would have been valid even if the referendum had been statutory and not advisory?

Why not quote the report that your headline is from instead? The report you quote does not mention Russia at all and does not have that quote about Eadie. As an attempt to convince, it fails. Have you a proper link?

 

[rogersix]

Why have you quoted a report that states that the referendum result would have been valid even if the referendum had been statutory and not advisory?

Why not quote the report that your headline is from instead? The report you quote does not mention Russia at all and does not have that quote about Eadie. As an attempt to convince, it fails. Have you a proper link?

Are you a Tory councillor in Burnley?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Why have you quoted a report that states that the referendum result would have been valid even if the referendum had been statutory and not advisory?

Why not quote the report that your headline is from instead? The report you quote does not mention Russia at all and does not have that quote about Eadie. As an attempt to convince, it fails. Have you a proper link?

I am never going to convince you, so why try? Maybe one day, the Russia Report will be published by a government. Meanwhile, we have the son of a KGB operative in Westminster.

 

[Since1982]

It could be of course that although their personal preference would have been to stay in the EU, they accepted that the public had voted against and that their duty was to (as promised) carry out their decision. I realise that accepting the referendum result is something of an alien concept to many Remainers!

Quite right that Remainers continue to argue that the referendum result should be reversed. It's what Leavers did after the 1975 referendum that voted to stay in, poll after poll says there is a majority now for being a part of the EU, the economic, social and political damage is clear, we will soon be a decade on from the most staggering act of national self harm so, absolutely, don't accept the result and seek to overturn it. A great shame Labour doesn't have the balls to take that stance - nothing would boost it's desire to restore economic growth like a return the SM and Customs Union.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I am never going to convince you, so why try? Maybe one day, the Russia Report will be published by a government. Meanwhile, we have the son of a KGB operative in Westminster.

You're certainly not going to convince me with fake reports.

 

[Motogull]

JRM is very popular with Tory party members. They think he's what a politician should be like. They are weird.

Yes, but I always have the Tories down as much better at reading the room than the labia party. The latter being too naively ideological and confident in their policies withe the Tories mostly get their pitches right (to meet electorate DM and Sun promoted thinking).

JRM needs snookers to win the public round. The prat.

 

[clapham_gull]

My personal reading of the state of the party is they've chosen to see off Reform first before becoming electable.

 

[clapham_gull]

Yes, but I always have the Tories down as much better at reading the room than the labia party.

 

[Bodian]

Yes, but I always have the Tories down as much better at reading the room than the labia party. The latter being too naively ideological and confident in their policies withe the Tories mostly get their pitches right (to meet electorate DM and Sun promoted thinking).

JRM needs snookers to win the public round. The prat.

View attachment 190320

Indeed - what sort of autocorrect system has @Motogull got?

 

[Hugo Rune]

My personal reading of the state of the party is they've chosen to see off Reform first before becoming electable.

It seems like they want to turn membership of the ECHR into a toxic and divisive political topic which they hope will dominate the right wing press agenda and convince people the state of this country is due to some ‘foreign court’ and not 14 years of Tory government.

But reform got there first.

There is a big opportunity for the Lib Dem’s to swing to the right and take the centre right voters in the next election whilst the Tories and Reform fight over an ever decreasing demographic that won’t win them the next election.

 

[Ooh it’s a corner]

Indeed - what sort of autocorrect system has @Motogull got?

I’m not sure we should ask!

 

[pocketseagull]

It seems like they want to turn membership of the ECHR into a toxic and divisive political topic which they hope will dominate the right wing press agenda and convince people the state of this country is due to some ‘foreign court’ and not 14 years of Tory government.

The ECHR thing is pretty worrying imo. It was noticeable during the leaders' election debates that Sunak's 'British Bill of Rights' argument seemed to resonate with cross party audiences. Really fear it taps into the English Exceptionalism we've already seen do so much damage.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Meanwhile, we have the son of a KGB operative in Westminster.

I could’ve sworn his dad was a toolmaker?