The issue isn't with that though. It's that there isn't £350m a week to go anywhere, NHS or no. Especially not as she is going to agree the divorce bill as I said, so that's more money to Europe, not money back...
Read my post again Rob the word 'Liberal' is in inverted commas and applies to Tory, Labour, Lib Dems and yes, Labour MP's and Peers alike who are all beside themselves because the people have dared to think for themselves. Oh and I wonder why Lord Heseltine is so pro Europe? Couldn't have anything to do with this could it? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1365120/RICHARD-KAY-Heseltines-900-000-EU-handout.html
By Variables I take it she means what our needs are and who we need to bring in......she said it would drop when we finally leave, from what the remoanamaniacs keep telling us about how bad things will be surely nobody will want to come here anyway. How genuine do you think those comments on the article are I have my reservations......as I said it was never a promise it was an option at best.... and I'm not happy with dishonesty at all I was told article50 would be invoked on the day after the referendum I was told David Cameron would lead the country whatever the result I was told that a leave vote would see Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.
To be honest I think Theresa May should have called a General Election before invoking Article 50 and its an opportunity lost. The Tories would have been returned with a thumping majority and would have a clear mandate to press ahead with the Brexit negotiations. As it is she now has to rely on a wafer thin majority in the House of Commons to get this deal through.
Yep, I really can't understand why she didn't call an election as there was (is) no way in hell Labour would win. I would go as far as to say that they are completely unelectable right now, she must have had her reasons but I for one can't think of one. Not only that when it comes to Brexit it would have made our noisy neighbours from the SNP completely irrelevant too, as it is they're like that sticky bit of s**t on your shoe that's hard to remove.
Eh? I know you wrote "Liberal". I was just pointing out that Farron is hardly one of the "elite". Just because Heseltine is pro Europe, doesn't alter the fact that he is right that this is a massive exercise in losing sovereignty.
Completely agree. It's also baffling because it somewhat delegitimises every decision she takes - unelected Prime minister, elected by only a quarter of eligible voters... all sounds distinctly undemocratic and so she would have been much better off calling a GE and getting a proper mandate.
She didn't say it would drop - she said we would "see a difference" then... a difference meaning... an increase? Things actually shouldn't be that bad at all, if we get a sensible deal in good time (which I remain positive that we will). The problem is that a sensible deal will not be the Brexit people voted for (I agree with everyone who says people quite clearly voted for a hard Brexit). It also won't include better democracy or reduced immigration, those things aren't solved by leaving the EU. It also won't mean freedom from EU laws or any of that stuff. It will leave us in a slightly worse trade position (except for the option to negotiate trade deals abroad with a much smaller economy so lower negotiating strength...) and markedly worse off on all other counts.
The electorate votes for a Government and not the PM so the question of her being legitimate doesn't really arise. We don't have a presidential electoral system thank goodness! My concern is that she has made a tactical error in not reinforcing her parliamentary authority by not going to the Country when every poll and indicator is favourable to her winning and with a handsome majority! She is going to get a load of hassle from Hessa, Major, Clark, Soubry et al on her own her side who will go to any lengths to derail the brexit process.
She didn't because she couldn't. Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 means elections are every 5 years, and it takes a 2/3rds majority in the commons or a vote of no confidence in the government in order to call an election any earlier. In the state Labour are in, there's no way they'd have done anything to bring an election forward. But do go on debating it...
I agree the tactical error. While I think I see what you're getting at, to be clear technically you actually only vote for your local MP. You certainly don't vote for the Government (that's decided by Parliament). However, conceptually, yes people vote for the Party generally (or at least they think they do) but also studies show many people think they vote for the PM, even though as you say technically they do not. Given how it's all perceived (and that was my point) there is a perception that her position is slightly illegitimate. Let's not forget that lots of Tories were howling when Brown took over for exactly that reason!
Alternatively, she could just repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 with a simple majority. Problem solved.
........... it's happened twice before when Callaghan took over from Wilson and when Major took over from Thatcher, although you're probably too young to remember that
It also happened when Eden had to retire (after Suez) and MacMillan took over and then Alec Douglas Hume took over from him (Profumo Scandal) without there being a General Election.
Nope. The FTPA 2011 repealed all of the old rules governing elections (The 1715 Septennial Act), removing them entirely from law. To now repeal the FTPA 2011 doesn't therefore bring those old rules back into law. It would require parliamentary debate (back to "2010" rules or a variation?) and then an Act of Parliament requiring approval by both houses in order to go back to a system where the PM can call a snap election. She could try, but I doubt the Lords would go for what is clearly a power grab. And without them there's no way she'd get an Act through significantly before the next scheduled General Election anyway.
A repeal bill would require a Parliamentary debate and approval by both houses too. If you repeal the FTPA 2011, you just specify there that the previous rules are reinstated - easy. Of course, as you say, they could bring in new rules, but if they want it done quickly that's how to do it. I'm not sure the Lords would mind actually. In any event, if they did, she could just call a tactical vote of no confidence - it would be pretty obvious why.
