FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Theresa May?
Theresa May?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"I never trusted this politician anymore than any other LibLabCon, but she could prove me wrong. If the appeal against today's high court ruling fails, and I'm sure it will, then she should call a snap general election straight away. The odds against this happening are now as low as 2/1 with Ladbrokes, after today's ruling. The trouble is that although she inherited a majority from Cameron, it was only by 12. Another election would see her land a much more substantial majority, big enough to push A50 through parliament without having to make any compromises. If she doesn't, and we end up stuck with the EU, or a diluted form of BREXIT, then my own suspicions will be confirmed. She was never serious that BREXIT meant BREXIT." *substantial | |||
 | |||
"I never trusted this politician anymore than any other LibLabCon, but she could prove me wrong. If the appeal against today's high court ruling fails, and I'm sure it will, then she should call a snap general election straight away. The odds against this happening are now as low as 2/1 with Ladbrokes, after today's ruling. The trouble is that although she inherited a majority from Cameron, it was only by 12. Another election would see her land a much more substances majority, big enough to push A50 through parliament without having to make any compromises. If she doesn't, and we end up stuck with the EU, or a diluted form of BREXIT, then my own suspicions will be confirmed. She was never serious that BREXIT meant BREXIT." is that the same Therasa May pictured campaigning against brexit ? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'd be pretty happy with a diluted Brexit, a Norway/Switzerland influenced model sounds pretty good tbh. Pretty sure that'd be pretty popular too." Norway has agreed to the freedom of movement, that seems to be Britains biggest issue with the EU so I doubt that will be plan smoothing. EU won't allow Britain have any involvement without the freedom of movement. | |||
"Of course, we'll have to ignore the fact that the fixed term parliament act means she can't call a snap election. But otherwise, good call! "She could call a vote of no confidence in herself and the cabinet she appointed. Not sure how that would play with the electorate let alone her own back benchers. It would put the opposition in a quandary though as to stop it they would have to say they thought this shower knew what they were doing. | |||
"I never trusted this politician anymore than any other LibLabCon, but she could prove me wrong. If the appeal against today's high court ruling fails, and I'm sure it will, then she should call a snap general election straight away. The odds against this happening are now as low as 2/1 with Ladbrokes, after today's ruling. The trouble is that although she inherited a majority from Cameron, it was only by 12. Another election would see her land a much more substances majority, big enough to push A50 through parliament without having to make any compromises. If she doesn't, and we end up stuck with the EU, or a diluted form of BREXIT, then my own suspicions will be confirmed. She was never serious that BREXIT meant BREXIT." Do you actually know how things work in Parliament? She can't call a snap election because we have fixed term parliaments. That said, she could engineer a vote of no confidence and that would have the same effect. However, you are making some false assumptions. 1) That this High Court ruling means that MP's are going to be exclusively obstructive. 2) That a future new conservative govt would railroad a hard Brexit through Parliament. Neither of the above assumptions are correct and most of all your assumption that the High Court ruling today is negative is also very, very wrong as well. | |||
"I'd be pretty happy with a diluted Brexit, a Norway/Switzerland influenced model sounds pretty good tbh. Pretty sure that'd be pretty popular too. Norway has agreed to the freedom of movement, that seems to be Britains biggest issue with the EU so I doubt that will be plan smoothing. EU won't allow Britain have any involvement without the freedom of movement. " I think the majority of those who voted, both remain and leave would compromise. Though, I could be wrong. | |||
"As they say.... No shit Sherlock. . . I said before the referendum and I maintain it, we will never leave the EU unless it's what they want! And it's pretty clear they don't want to..... What you want or vote is irrelevant.... If voting made any difference they wouldn't let you do it "I don't have a vote | |||
| |||
"I never trusted this politician anymore than any other LibLabCon, but she could prove me wrong. If the appeal against today's high court ruling fails, and I'm sure it will, then she should call a snap general election straight away. The odds against this happening are now as low as 2/1 with Ladbrokes, after today's ruling. The trouble is that although she inherited a majority from Cameron, it was only by 12. Another election would see her land a much more substances majority, big enough to push A50 through parliament without having to make any compromises. If she doesn't, and we end up stuck with the EU, or a diluted form of BREXIT, then my own suspicions will be confirmed. She was never serious that BREXIT meant BREXIT. Do you actually know how things work in Parliament? She can't call a snap election because we have fixed term parliaments. That said, she could engineer a vote of no confidence and that would have the same effect. However, you are making some false assumptions. 1) That this High Court ruling means that MP's are going to be exclusively obstructive. 2) That a future new conservative govt would railroad a hard Brexit through Parliament. Neither of the above assumptions are correct and most of all your assumption that the High Court ruling today is negative is also very, very wrong as well." How typically patronising, of course I know how things work. I also know that there are ways and means to trigger an election. She won't do it because, as I said she cannot be trusted. That goes for the whole bleeding lot of em. With the exception of Farage, who left the Tory party after they signed the Maastricht Treaty. We are all going to have to do what we would have done, had Cameron not promised an in out referendum. Get behind Farage, get behind UKIP. | |||
"I think as politicians go she is pretty straight ! Tho I'm not sure if that means a lot ?" I can’t quite make my mind up on her. I think grammar schools are a crap idea that aren’t supported by evidence, and there wasn’t much public demand for it, so she was obviously just throwing a bone to the back benchers. I think keeping Jeremy Hunt on was a bad idea, and I think “Brexit means Brexit” is the most ridiculous slogan in political history, but as I said before, she has done it to try and keep the Brexitiers together for as long as possible, because when the details are released thats when the Brexitiers are really going to lose it when they realise that their vision of Brexit isn’t the same as the Brexitier next to them. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I never trusted this politician anymore than any other LibLabCon, but she could prove me wrong. If the appeal against today's high court ruling fails, and I'm sure it will, then she should call a snap general election straight away. The odds against this happening are now as low as 2/1 with Ladbrokes, after today's ruling. The trouble is that although she inherited a majority from Cameron, it was only by 12. Another election would see her land a much more substances majority, big enough to push A50 through parliament without having to make any compromises. If she doesn't, and we end up stuck with the EU, or a diluted form of BREXIT, then my own suspicions will be confirmed. She was never serious that BREXIT meant BREXIT. Do you actually know how things work in Parliament? She can't call a snap election because we have fixed term parliaments. That said, she could engineer a vote of no confidence and that would have the same effect. However, you are making some false assumptions. 1) That this High Court ruling means that MP's are going to be exclusively obstructive. 2) That a future new conservative govt would railroad a hard Brexit through Parliament. Neither of the above assumptions are correct and most of all your assumption that the High Court ruling today is negative is also very, very wrong as well. How typically patronising, of course I know how things work. I also know that there are ways and means to trigger an election. She won't do it because, as I said she cannot be trusted. That goes for the whole bleeding lot of em. With the exception of Farage, who left the Tory party after they signed the Maastricht Treaty. We are all going to have to do what we would have done, had Cameron not promised an in out referendum. Get behind Farage, get behind UKIP." The thing I really don't get about Farage, and I know it's old news but I still don't get it, is how he employs a German secretary? Are there no British people who can do the job? | |||
"I never trusted this politician anymore than any other LibLabCon, but she could prove me wrong. If the appeal against today's high court ruling fails, and I'm sure it will, then she should call a snap general election straight away. The odds against this happening are now as low as 2/1 with Ladbrokes, after today's ruling. The trouble is that although she inherited a majority from Cameron, it was only by 12. Another election would see her land a much more substances majority, big enough to push A50 through parliament without having to make any compromises. If she doesn't, and we end up stuck with the EU, or a diluted form of BREXIT, then my own suspicions will be confirmed. She was never serious that BREXIT meant BREXIT. Do you actually know how things work in Parliament? She can't call a snap election because we have fixed term parliaments. That said, she could engineer a vote of no confidence and that would have the same effect. However, you are making some false assumptions. 1) That this High Court ruling means that MP's are going to be exclusively obstructive. 2) That a future new conservative govt would railroad a hard Brexit through Parliament. Neither of the above assumptions are correct and most of all your assumption that the High Court ruling today is negative is also very, very wrong as well. How typically patronising, of course I know how things work. I also know that there are ways and means to trigger an election. She won't do it because, as I said she cannot be trusted. That goes for the whole bleeding lot of em. With the exception of Farage, who left the Tory party after they signed the Maastricht Treaty. We are all going to have to do what we would have done, had Cameron not promised an in out referendum. Get behind Farage, get behind UKIP. The thing I really don't get about Farage, and I know it's old news but I still don't get it, is how he employs a German secretary? Are there no British people who can do the job?" Why do fathers employ thier own sons? | |||
"Could be that she has delayed invoking article 50 so that this kind of fall out could happen. She can then call a general election, leave the EU on her terms and wipe out the opposition in one fell swoop. " But she would have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act first. Should she be able to do that with the power of the executive, or do you think Parliament should be the only body with he power to repeal legislation? | |||
"Could be that she has delayed invoking article 50 so that this kind of fall out could happen. She can then call a general election, leave the EU on her terms and wipe out the opposition in one fell swoop. But she would have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act first. Should she be able to do that with the power of the executive, or do you think Parliament should be the only body with he power to repeal legislation? " Parliament. The way Parliament voted to allow the government to invoke article 50. And that wouldn't be a problem, other parties are not going to turn down the chance of an election are they, even though it would be disastrous for them | |||
"Could be that she has delayed invoking article 50 so that this kind of fall out could happen. She can then call a general election, leave the EU on her terms and wipe out the opposition in one fell swoop. But she would have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act first. Should she be able to do that with the power of the executive, or do you think Parliament should be the only body with he power to repeal legislation? Parliament. The way Parliament voted to allow the government to invoke article 50. And that wouldn't be a problem, other parties are not going to turn down the chance of an election are they, even though it would be disastrous for them" Do you not think that it would be a little strange that the MPs who voted it enact the law, would now vote to repeal it?  | |||
"Could be that she has delayed invoking article 50 so that this kind of fall out could happen. She can then call a general election, leave the EU on her terms and wipe out the opposition in one fell swoop. But she would have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act first. Should she be able to do that with the power of the executive, or do you think Parliament should be the only body with he power to repeal legislation? Parliament. The way Parliament voted to allow the government to invoke article 50. And that wouldn't be a problem, other parties are not going to turn down the chance of an election are they, even though it would be disastrous for them Do you not think that it would be a little strange that the MPs who voted it enact the law, would now vote to repeal it? "No do you? | |||
"Could be that she has delayed invoking article 50 so that this kind of fall out could happen. She can then call a general election, leave the EU on her terms and wipe out the opposition in one fell swoop. But she would have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act first. Should she be able to do that with the power of the executive, or do you think Parliament should be the only body with he power to repeal legislation? Parliament. The way Parliament voted to allow the government to invoke article 50. And that wouldn't be a problem, other parties are not going to turn down the chance of an election are they, even though it would be disastrous for them Do you not think that it would be a little strange that the MPs who voted it enact the law, would now vote to repeal it?
No do you?"Well if they vote to repeal it then it then they would be admitting that it was a stupid law that they shouldn’t have enacted in the first place. I doubt that many MPs would repeal a law that they voted for. | |||
| |||
"I never trusted this politician anymore than any other LibLabCon, but she could prove me wrong. If the appeal against today's high court ruling fails, and I'm sure it will, then she should call a snap general election straight away. The odds against this happening are now as low as 2/1 with Ladbrokes, after today's ruling. The trouble is that although she inherited a majority from Cameron, it was only by 12. Another election would see her land a much more substances majority, big enough to push A50 through parliament without having to make any compromises. If she doesn't, and we end up stuck with the EU, or a diluted form of BREXIT, then my own suspicions will be confirmed. She was never serious that BREXIT meant BREXIT. Do you actually know how things work in Parliament? She can't call a snap election because we have fixed term parliaments. That said, she could engineer a vote of no confidence and that would have the same effect. However, you are making some false assumptions. 1) That this High Court ruling means that MP's are going to be exclusively obstructive. 2) That a future new conservative govt would railroad a hard Brexit through Parliament. Neither of the above assumptions are correct and most of all your assumption that the High Court ruling today is negative is also very, very wrong as well. How typically patronising, of course I know how things work. I also know that there are ways and means to trigger an election. She won't do it because, as I said she cannot be trusted. That goes for the whole bleeding lot of em. With the exception of Farage, who left the Tory party after they signed the Maastricht Treaty. We are all going to have to do what we would have done, had Cameron not promised an in out referendum. Get behind Farage, get behind UKIP. The thing I really don't get about Farage, and I know it's old news but I still don't get it, is how he employs a German secretary? Are there no British people who can do the job?" There is no reason why he shouldn't employ anyone of any nationality, as long as said employee is not a supporter of the EU. Farage is leader of UKIP, which is not a nationalist party, not even close. So anyone can join, with the exception of members / former members of the BNP, EDL, etc. That is party policy... | |||
| |||
"As Theresa May was Home Secretary for six years, you might think she should have bothered to take some time to get to grips with British law at some point. "But she made Great friends with the police, so they will be more than willing to put themselves in harms way to protect her and her government, right? | |||
"UKIP is definitely nationalist. Whether it's a party anymore is anyone's guess!" It's not a party that I would want an invite for! | |||
"UKIP is definitely nationalist. Whether it's a party anymore is anyone's guess!" No it is not, it is against the EU and unlimited immigration. THAT does not make it nationalist. As for whether it is still a party I know not, it was going to change format, hopefully now that won't happen. | |||
"UKIP is definitely nationalist. Whether it's a party anymore is anyone's guess! It's not a party that I would want an invite for! " Too right! | |||
