Jump to content

Manlinose

Members
  • Content Count

    3,037
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Manlinose

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Because none of the conditions applicable under this Act apply to Jared. He has not been convicted of a criminal offence resulting in a prison sentence, he has not been suspended by the House of Commons and he has not been convicted of making false expense claims.
  2. What's a remain coalition? Official Labour & Lib Dem policy is directly contradictory which is partly why Parliament currently can't agree on a course of action. A General Election will probably result in another hung parliament, and whatever the outcome, you assume all party MP's will toe whatever party line they belong to, which is probably unlikely. Pro leave Labour MP's are unlikely to vote to remain and those Conservatives who don't want to leave without a deal, if there still are any in the next Parliament, will not vote to leave without a deal. You seem to assume that a General Election will result in a majority of MP's being able to agree on a course of action - something they have so far miserably and embarrassingly failed to do other than agree on what course of action they don't want. If there is a big enough Conservative majority, we will have certainty, but any other likely outcome will leave us where we are now, with no majority support for anything
  3. There would only be a point if the EU believed a General Election would change anything. I doubt it would and I doubt the EU believes it would You are right, it would take a seismic shift to change anything, but I'm not convinced a General Election would be seismic and, although I believe another referendum would produce a different result (for various reasons, but primarily because I believe more people who think we are better off remaining, didn't vote in the last referendum than those who think we are better off leaving, and many thousands of younger people who weren't old enough to vote last time are now, and generally, the younger generation are more pro EU, although it is notoriously difficult to get the young uns to vote) I'm struggling to see any prospect of it happening
  4. At least we agree on something. The problem is that the Government is currently controlled by those who are happy to leave without a deal and would never propose another referendum, and Parliament struggles to decide anything constructive.
  5. But surely, the EU will only agree to an extension of they think there is a point to it? If they think the UK Government is not doing it in good faith and has no intention of negotiating a deal which just might be acceptable to both sides, why prolong the inevitable?
  6. Not as far as the more vociferous leavers are concerned - if I'm understanding their position correctly, we voted to leave so that is what we should do. No scope for another referendum as far as they are concerned
  7. Where do advertisers find all these models with such small hands that they need both hands to eat a burger from McDonald's or KFC or wherever. I'm not Goliath, but I can eat a Big Mac one handed. And don't get me started on Wagon Wheels!
  8. Sometimes yes, but many legal disputes end up in Court because the Law is open to alternative interpretations and it is the Court's job to adjudicate on which interpretation, in that Court's opinion, most closely matches what they believe Parliament intended
  9. There is a very good chance we could still leave the EU on 31st October. The PM can comply with the letter of the law by requesting an extension, but couldn't he also inform our EU partners that he has no intention of negotiating a new deal? thus making any extension subject to the EU believing that he might be ousted and a more pro EU PM elected
  10. Surely you can't have Parliament and the Courts both being sovereign. One has to have sovereignty over the other. It's simplistic, but not necessarily wrong to go back to the old adage that Parliament makes the laws and The Courts interpret them (although admittedly not relevant to this particular discussion)
  11. It wasn't 52% of people, it was 52% of those who voted. We don't, and will never, know what motivated the vote leavers to put their cross in the wrong box, maybe some of them did fully wish to leave without a deal. But the referendum was not a once in a lifetime vote, as I think I read on another post on this thread - it wasn't even a legally binding vote. Time passes, different facts and understandings emerge and the electorate moves on. We have General Elections every 5 years or so, and no-one seriously argues that we shouldn't have another one because we made our intentions clear last time, so why should a referendum result be any different?
  12. It isn't the Government's role to take that view, or even consider it. Thomas Cook was not an essential business or in an essential industry. The directors, shareholders and/or creditors could have proposed or supported Administration or a Company Voluntary Arrangement if the underlying business was viable. The fact they chose liquidation is telling.
  13. "Now full of"? It has always had more than it's fair share, the big difference is that they are currently the ones that hold sway. They won't always - common sense always prevails eventually - it may take a few election losses as it did in the 90's, but they will come back to the centre ground eventually, although there will be a lost generation in the meantime
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.