He did have a plan; a firm commitment to prompt immediate implementation of Article 50 if the vote was to leave. He changed his mind straightaway. Unbelievably feeble.clk230":1outv0gp said:.....
He should have had a plan in place he is our countries leader !
Jacob":3v0m5jy2 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?
Or very smart ? Delaying may just allow the enormity of a decision to leave to really be seen for it was forecast to be, a complete disaster.Jacob":2mk1xdzc said:Unbelievably feeble.
But what you don't know is what advice he received to the contrary. I doubt very much indeed if he made the decision on his lonesome.Jacob":br7zmvwo said:He did have a plan; a firm commitment to prompt immediate implementation of Article 50 if the vote was to leave. He changed his mind straightaway. Unbelievably feeble.clk230":br7zmvwo said:.....
He should have had a plan in place he is our countries leader !
My point is fairly obvious.Inoffthered":lp2gkhax said:Jacob":lp2gkhax said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?
And your point is what exactly?
Jacob":6upmjmk7 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?
Paddy Roxburgh":312ex9mh said:And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/
stuartpaul":ybxziamx said:But what you don't know is what advice he received to the contrary. I doubt very much indeed if he made the decision on his lonesome.
Jacob":3ctlsbmk said:My point is fairly obvious.Inoffthered":3ctlsbmk said:Jacob":3ctlsbmk said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?
And your point is what exactly?
But it has to be said - both the EU and our govt spend on schemes - regeneration or whatnot, which is good. But they are reluctant to spend on people direct i.e. give them proper benefits and a good standard of living when things are difficult.
It's all very well having a new swimming pool etc but if you are skint it may not improve your life a great deal if you have more pressing problems.
The argument is that it's now been legitimised, read the article, there's more than 4 blokes in Newcastle being talked about. Similar story in the Guardian too if that's more your thing.Cheshirechappie":9pkrzy5z said:Paddy Roxburgh":9pkrzy5z said:And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/
Careful, Paddy. The photograph of the 'protest' in Newcastle shows a grand total of four protesters with a big banner. Still vile and distasteful in the extreme - and quite right to condemn it; but it's not a mass outbreak of racism and xenophobia.
One person's "benefit trap" is another persons liberation from poverty and the opportunity to make something more of his life other than merely surviving. Or merely to get through a difficult patch without losing house and home etc.Cheshirechappie":2zv4mmz3 said:.....
Governments of all stripe have spent years spending directly on people by giving them benefits, and eventually realised that all that did is trap them in welfare dependency. ...
custard":dcuunag6 said:Indeed point one of Article 50 states that, "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements", and our "constitutional requirements" are crystal clear, sovereignty in this matter rests with parliament and not with the referendum. That appears to be the key fact, the way this country works is that we all vote for representatives to parliament who then vote on our behalf, and a referendum doesn't actually body swerve around that requirement.
So it looks as though the referendum itself doesn't have any actual legal weight, it was if you like an opinion poll, a testing of the water, an opportunity for the people to express their thoughts. But to have the weight of law it's now up to MPs to factor the referendum vote alongside other evidence and their individual consciences regarding what is in the best interest of the UK and then vote accordingly, and then it's for the Lords to accept or reject that vote. So if an MP believed the referendum vote was corrupted by inaccurate campaign promises, or that they thought many people had subsequently changed their minds, or they thought the referendum result was plain wrong for the UK, then they would be perfectly entitled to risk the wrath of their constituency voters and vote remain.
As Geoffrey Robertson QC says, backed up incidentally in a letter to The Times this morning from Charles Flint QC, another leading constitutional lawyer, "this has a long way to run yet".
Cheshirechappie":3pu3n81y said:Paddy Roxburgh":3pu3n81y said:And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/
Careful, Paddy. The photograph of the 'protest' in Newcastle shows a grand total of four protesters with a big banner. Still vile and distasteful in the extreme - and quite right to condemn it; but it's not a mass outbreak of racism and xenophobia.
Wuffles":34ljbz07 said:The argument is that it's now been legitimised, read the article, there's more than 4 blokes in Newcastle being talked about. Similar story in the Guardian too if that's more your thing.Cheshirechappie":34ljbz07 said:Paddy Roxburgh":34ljbz07 said:And so it begins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... exit-vote/
Careful, Paddy. The photograph of the 'protest' in Newcastle shows a grand total of four protesters with a big banner. Still vile and distasteful in the extreme - and quite right to condemn it; but it's not a mass outbreak of racism and xenophobia.
Inoffthered":24d5frk8 said:Jacob":24d5frk8 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale?
And your point is what exactly?
Enter your email address to join: