The Economy is in for a rough ride

[jeremyp]

Unrealistic nonsense.  Why should she call an election?

She has to implement a policy with which she does not agree.

The Referendum is over: Brexit is fact, an incontrovertible fact.

It hasn't happened yet.

And why, on this planet, should she go for the Norway option?

Because then we don't destroy our banking and manufacturing sectors.

Yes, she was a Remainer, but as anyone who knows anything about politics (again, not you, then!), a very reluctant one.

What does that even mean? Does it mean she has no integrity?

Had she decided to call an election she would have swept the floor with the divided and inept Labour Part,  thus strengtheing her position hugely.  Good job she didn't, for you, eh?

It's just occurred to me that she can't call a general election. The last government introduced fixed length terms. So I'll change my mind: if I were in her position, I would negotiate a deal as close to the Norway model as possible and then put it to the country in another referendum: Norway model or stay in the EU. Then I would pass primary legislation that would either ban future referendums or at least require a 50% majority of the entire electorate.

[jeremyp]

the EU, with its constrictions on our sovereignty and control of so much of our lives.

Can you name one aspect of your life that is controlled by the EU?

[jeremyp]

Are you people going to ask for a re-run of a General Election if the result doesn't suit you?

We already do rerun the General Election every five years.

[jeremyp]

I understand that the Brexit plan being worked on now will incorporate plans for our future.  Do give the Government some credit for foresight.

Foresight means you do the planning in advance. If the government had used any foresight, they would already have had a plan on day one.

[Nearly Sane]

She has to implement a policy with which she does not agree.

It hasn't happened yet.
Because then we don't destroy our banking and manufacturing sectors.
What does that even mean? Does it mean she has no integrity?
It's just occurred to me that she can't call a general election. The last government introduced fixed length terms. So I'll change my mind: if I were in her position, I would negotiate a deal as close to the Norway model as possible and then put it to the country in another referendum: Norway model or stay in the EU. Then I would pass primary legislation that would either ban future referendums or at least require a 50% majority of the entire electorate.

Fixed majorities of the entire electorate gives votes to dead people. The fixed term parliament can be changed if they could get two thirds of the votes, or a simple no confidence vote. While I think it might look odd for a govt to vote NC in itself, I think in certain circumstances it could be done. There was a time when I thought the Tories should wait till the new boundaries are in place which should give them a massive majority but the current news on the Rialto is that Brexiteer Tories are possibly going to vote down the boundary changes to save their own seats

[BashfulAnthony]

Foresight means you do the planning in advance. If the government had used any foresight, they would already have had a plan on day one.

As I said:  Cameron was in charge;  it was he who should have had a plan in place.  And I remind you, he said he would see the matter through, whatever the Referendum result.  That was a blatant lie.  He simply packed up and ran, and left others to carry the can   As the leader of the Remain campaign it was entirely his responsibility, and was, and is, his fault that there was no plan.

[BashfulAnthony]

We already do rerun the General Election every five years.

Right. But we have to wait five years, however unpopular or unsuccessful a government is.  Silly Remainers are clambering for a second Referendum, weeks after the first, when we don't even know how it is going to impact.  At present the economy is fine.  So, on what grounds are you people asking for a re-run?  I'll answer that for you:  because you are bad losers, no more than that.

[Nearly Sane]

As I said:  Cameron was in charge;  it was he who should have had a plan in place.  And I remind you, he said he would see the matter through, whatever the Referendum result.  That was a blatant lie.  He simply packed up and ran, and left others to carry the can   As the leader of the Remain campaign it was entirely his responsibility, and was, and is, his fault that there was no plan.

Why should he plan for what he was opposed to? Was it the Iraqis reinsibility to have a plan for losing the war?

And just to note the PM is only a primus inter pares, the people in charge are the govt.

[Nearly Sane]

Right. But we have to wait five years, however unpopular or unsuccessful a government is.  Silly Remainers are clambering for a second Referendum, weeks after the first, when we don't even know how it is going to impact.  At present the economy is fine.  So, on what grounds are you people asking for a re-run?  I'll answer that for you:  because you are bad losers, no more than that.

This seems a misrepresentations of those who want a second referendum  and arguing for it on the basis of whatever deal is actually negotiated. Now I think their position is nonsense but you shouldn't misrepresent it.

[BashfulAnthony]

Can you name one aspect of your life that is controlled by the EU?

Of all laws proposed by the EU that UK objected to, 84% of our objections were over-ruled.  We have no control over the movement of people, all of which impact on our lives mightily. Our trade relations with the rest of the world are constricted by EU regulations; small businesses in particular suffering considerably from this EU red tape.  So, we have lost the ability to control laws, our borders, and trade relations outside the EU. Haven't you noticed those things?  Thank goodness we are throwing off the yoke!

[BashfulAnthony]

Why should he plan for what he was opposed to? Was it the Iraqis reinsibility to have a plan for losing the war?

And just to note the PM is only a primus inter pares, the people in charge are the govt.

For goodness' sake:  he said he would do it, and lied, and then did a bunk. Cameron was the Government, they did as he said.  What were Brexiters supposed to do, take over the Government and plan for Brexit?  That  would almost have amounted to a coup! You Remainers are saying the most absurd things, and it all shows just what massively bad losers you are.

[BashfulAnthony]

This seems a misrepresentations of those who want a second referendum  and arguing for it on the basis of whatever deal is actually negotiated. Now I think their position is nonsense but you shouldn't misrepresent it.

I'm not misrepresenting anyone. Both the silly, opportunist Farron, and Smith and the Remainers all,  have said we should have a second Referendum when the Government announces its plans;  they say we should have a vote on whether we agree with the Government stance, and that's before any effects may be felt.  That is their position, whatever odd idea you have of it.  The fact remains:  we have voted out, and that is it, except in the minds of you losers.

[BashfulAnthony]

She has to implement a policy with which she does not agree.

It hasn't happened yet.
Because then we don't destroy our banking and manufacturing sectors.
What does that even mean? Does it mean she has no integrity?
It's just occurred to me that she can't call a general election. The last government introduced fixed length terms. So I'll change my mind: if I were in her position, I would negotiate a deal as close to the Norway model as possible and then put it to the country in another referendum: Norway model or stay in the EU. Then I would pass primary legislation that would either ban future referendums or at least require a 50% majority of the entire electorate.

Once again you show your lack of political acumen: you are totally wrong. Theresa May could call a General Election if two-thirds of MP's called for it, which would be unlikely;  or she could declare no confidence in her own Government and call for an election on those grounds.  Luckily for you losers she has decided not to. If she did she would be returned with a large majority and be in the strongest possible position from her point of view.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not misrepresenting anyone. Both the silly, opportunist Farron, and Smith and the Remainers all,  have said we should have a second Referendum when the Government announces its plans;  they say we should have a vote on whether we agree with the Government stance, and that's before any effects may be felt.  That is their position, whatever odd idea you have of it.  The fact remains:  we have voted out, and that is it, except in the minds of you losers.

that is when the negotiations have taken place. So your idea of another vote in a few weeks is a misrepresentation.

Nice of you to ignore the bit in my post where I said their position is a nonsense.

[Nearly Sane]

For goodness' sake:  he said he would do it, and lied, and then did a bunk. Cameron was the Government, they did as he said.  What were Brexiters supposed to do, take over the Government and plan for Brexit?  That  would almost have amounted to a coup! You Remainers are saying the most absurd things, and it all shows just what massively bad losers you are.

many of them were in the govt. You seem to be somewhat baffled by this basic point. BTW what  does 'he said he would do it' mean here? Is it invoke article 50, then that isn't and was never a plan.

[BashfulAnthony]

many of them were in the govt. You seem to be somewhat baffled by this basic point. BTW what  does 'he said he would do it' mean here? Is it invoke article 50, then that isn't and was never a plan.

How could members of the Government defy Cameron and, as members of his Cabinet, start preparing for Brexit?  He would simply sack them.  Remember, he only condescendingly allowed them to campaign for Brexit, if they wished, and only then some time after the Remain campaign had been launched.

Cameron said he would prepare us for exit from the EU if he lost the vote.  That is a fact; and he welched on it.  He was the only one, repeat,  the only one, who could have initiated a plan for Brexit whilst his Government was in power. Got it?

[Nearly Sane]

How could members of the Government defy Cameron and, as members of his Cabinet, start preparing for Brexit?  He would simply sack them.  Remember, he only condescendingly allowed them to campaign for Brexit, if they wished, and only then some time after the Remain campaign had been launched.

Cameron said he would prepare us for exit from the EU if he lost the vote.  That is a fact; and he welched on it.  He was the only one, repeat,  the only one, who could have initiated a plan for Brexit whilst his Government was in power. Got it?

so those in the Cabinet voting to leave knew there were no plans, and whatever was being voted for wasn't understood? By the way can you point me in the direction of Cameron's promise to prepare us for exit, and explain why something that couldn't be negotiated before a vote was going to be prepared for by someone that didn't want the vote to say leave? And in addition, lay out your understanding that a PM in the UK seemingly has unlimited powers and doesn't serve at the willingness of their party? Because given what you say the downfall of Thatcher (and indeed Dave) was impossible.

[BashfulAnthony]

so those in the Cabinet voting to leave knew there were no plans, and whatever was being voted for wasn't understood? By the way can you point me in the direction of Cameron's promise to prepare us for exit, and explain why something that couldn't be negotiated before a vote was going to be prepared for by someone that didn't want the vote to say leave? And in addition, lay out your understanding that a PM in the UK seemingly has unlimited powers and doesn't serve at the willingness of their party? Because given what you say the downfall of Thatcher (and indeed Dave) was impossible.

I'm in a bit of a hurry, tea-time!  Just to say: Cameron said on the Marr Show on 12th June that  he would stay on as PM whatever the result of the Referendum, and carry out the wishes of the British people.  Asked by Marr to repeat that, he did so.  Do you not follow politics at all?  You hold a lot of views in ignorance of the facts.  You seem not to have appreciated the power Cameron had in the running of the Government, as Duncan Smith said when he finally had the courage to resign rather than carry out the continuing order to initiate cut-backs which he didn't agree with . The only alternative to defying Cameron was to resign.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm in a bit of a hurry, tea-time!  Just to say: Cameron said on the Marr Show on 12th June that  he would stay on as PM whatever the result of the Referendum, and carry out the wishes of the British people.  Asked by Marr to repeat that, he did so.  Do you not follow politics at all?  You hold a lot of views in ignorance of the facts.  You seem not to have appreciated the power Cameron had in the running of the Government, as Duncan Smith said when he finally had the courage to resign rather than carry out the continuing order to initiate cut-backs which he didn't agree with . The only alternative to defying Cameron was to resign.

That"s not a promise of a plan. As to IDS, again this is a policy he spoke for continually, like the bedroom tax you excoriated earlier. iDS was the minister for it,  spoke for it,  implemented it but you think he is trustworthy if he says nothing  to do with me, guv

[BashfulAnthony]

That"s not a promise of a plan. As to IDS, again this is a policy he spoke for continually, like the bedroom tax you excoriated earlier. iDS was the minister for it,  spoke for it,  implemented it but you think he is trustworthy if he says nothing  to do with me, guv

When  Prime Miister says he will do something, on national tv, he should be as good as his word in my book, not, apparently in yours.  Instead, two weeks later he resigned:  what a dishonest, lying goon!

Your point about Duncan Smith, what ever it is, is  not worth pursuing 

[Nearly Sane]

When  Prime Miister says he will do something, on national tv, he should be as good as his word in my book, not, apparently in yours.  Instead, two weeks later he resigned:  what a dishonest, lying goon!

Your point about Duncan Smith, what ever it is,is  not worth pursuing

That still doesn't make it a plan. It was at most a promise.

As to IDS, it seems once again that you don't really understand anything about govt.

ETA. and can stop with the idea that I am defending Cameron. Thinking that you show an inept piece if judgement as regards IDS or the disgraced Kiam Fox, does not mean that I think highly of Cameron.

[L.A.]

When  Prime Miister says he will do something, on national tv, he should be as good as his word in my book, not, apparently in yours.  Instead, two weeks later he resigned:  what a dishonest, lying goon!

Your point about Duncan Smith, what ever it is,is  not worth pursuing

Cameron's position always was going to be untenable in the event of a Leave vote, Ken Clarke said as much at the time - and to be honest, we are better off without him. What would he be able to contribute at this stage?

[BashfulAnthony]

That still doesn't make it a plan. It was at most a promise.

As to IDS, it seems once again that you don't really understand anything about govt.

ETA. and can stop with the idea that I am defending Cameron. Thinking that you show an inept piece if judgement as regards IDS or the disgraced Kiam Fox, does not mean that I think highly of Cameron.

I know it doesn't make it a plan!  The whole point is that he said he would stay and see us through it.  If that doesn't mean he was going to implement some sort of plan, I don't know what is!!

Why am I displaying inept judgement  over Fox and and Duncan Smith?  I mentioned Duncan Smith only to make a point.  Fox is in the Government on merit; and far be it from someone as politically clueless as you to pronounce on that.

[Nearly Sane]

I know it doesn't make it a plan!  The whole point is that he said he would stay and see us through it.  If that doesn't mean he was going to implement some sort of plan, I don't know what is!!

Why am I displaying inept judgement  over Fox and and Duncan Smith?  I mentioned Duncan Smith only to make a point.  Fox is in the Government on merit; and far be it from someone as politically clueless as you to pronounce on that.

Because you think in trade negotiatiinsyou can trust someone who had to resign over donations and access.

[BashfulAnthony]

Cameron's position always was going to be untenable in the event of a Leave vote, Ken Clarke said as much at the time - and to be honest, we are better off without him. What would he be able to contribute at this stage?

I agree.  And after the shambles of his "negotiations" for a better EU deal  (it was a sham, anyway!) I wouldn't trust him negotiating for a new bicycle!