Michael “holds the coats as the big boys bully other people” Gove is, I would suggest, not a reliable source in this matter.
No. Just no.
-
The bill is a government bill. May is bringing it forward as a government measure. There is no way she would then turn around and advise HM to refuse assent.
-
The bill is a government bill, implementing a majority decision in a referendum. There is no way HM would set herself against both the government and the people.
Please, American Dopers, please accept that the Queen does not refuse assent. It’s been over three centuries since the monarch refused assent. It’s just not going to happen. She’s a constitutional monarch, not a dictator in waiting.
The ninety year old Queen has cut out about ninety territories from the British Empire. She’s really, really good at it, but just because she is the world expert at cutting ties doesn’t mean that she does it for shits and giggles. I’m sure she’ll continue to abide by the constitution rather than go rogue and cause an unprecedented constitutional crisis that would result in further diminution of the Crown’s powers and would fail to block the decision of the other parts of Parliament. When you think about it, her role as the Crown in Parliament (Parliament is formed of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Crown) is to protect against tyranny, rather than to try to become a tyrant by failing to follow the constitution in carrying out the Crown’s responsibilities.
I suspect that the Queen would be less likely to withhold consent on a bill than she would be to dump Phillip, take Hollande and Tajani as lovers, and re-assert the Crown’s claim over Calais. (That will be covered in the second season of The Crown on Netfilx.)
No. It does not work that way. You’ve asked about this about a dozen different ways over the past couple of years, and the answer is still no.
Possibly, though about three months later Sky claimed 2 sources and went public with the story. Yes, perhaps the same pint applies …
The Queen may even have posed as devils advocate, at least we know she had an open mind, which is several steps more rational than the single-issue, bleeding heart mind set.
If she asked a question about Brexit, what’s wrong with that? She may want to be fully informed on issues, from both sides of the issue, but she knows that she takes the advice of her government.
Can you tell us what you imagine the “single-issue, bleeding heart mind set” is?
Um, immigration is already being reduced, and Theresa May is giving every indication she’s serious about it. See for example the article below. Yes, there were lies on the pro-Leave side, and the people who lied about NHS funding, for example, should be held accountable for it. But I don’t think it’s correct to say “nothing we were promised is going to happen”. The UK is going to have less immigration than it had before and more control over its laws and internal affairs. Yes, it will take an economic hit, but I think those two concrete benefits will be worth it.
The PM is blasted as a Little England neo-imperialist in an essay in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/opinion/theresa-mays-empire-of-the-mind.html?emc=eta1&_r=0
Meh. Editorials are editorials. I don’t know what May actually wants, but she’s bound and determined to drain the poison chalice she’s been handed. Because the people have spoken.
In other news, if Britain drops out of the European Medicines Agency it may affect the speed in which UK patients get access to new drugs. Or everything might be fine. Yes, that seems more likely.
If immigration is already being reduced, why do we need to leave the EU to reduce it? And, as noted, it’s not the controlled immigration that is likely to be the issue here if the UK leaves the EU.
Also interesting that you should pick an article discussing student numbers. The threat of Brexit is already having a serious effect on UK universities, both in terms of drastically reducing EU student numbers and in the exclusion of the UK from new ERASMUS research projects (which often have a six-year timeframe). Another small but significant economic hit.
Worth what? As noted, non-student immigration is already falling and slated to fall further. And as for “more control over laws and internal affairs”, by that argument Scotland should secede in order to have more control over its laws and internal affairs. Heck, London should secede - it clearly had different political views than the rest of the country, and why should the rest of the country dictate what’s best for London, particularly when it will likely have a detrimental effect on the capital?
One can *reductio *this argument as *absurdum*as you like but it’s a very short journey to get there; it remains a silly, isolationist argument and one I addressed in the post you responded to.
God that’s embarrassing garbage:
Urm, yeah.
Aren’t “Little Englander” and “neo-imperialist” basically opposite terms?
I know nothing about UK politics, so I won’t address the actual OP. But why are people acting like people saying that people have changed their minds are making shit up? It was widely reported after the vote.
Sure, maybe those numbers don’t amount to anything, but it’s not anything that’s been made up.
Apparently Tony Blairis going to be the new anti-Brexit champion, out to change people’s minds on leaving the EU.
I suppose it makes sense - if you want someone with first-hand experience of the consequences of the UK rushing into an ill-considered major international action based on lies and misrepresented information and with potential serious and unforeseen negative effects, Tony’s definitely your guy.
There are serious intelligence indications that the EU has WMDs.
I’m just sayin’.
I started a thread on this in Elections.
It’s a really good speech. It’s the best case for Remain I’ve seen made in months, perhaps ever. And it was always going to suffer from being delivered by Tony Blair. But while it was kind of predictable that Leave would come out attacking Blair rather than the arguments, it has been a bit weird - pace Gyrate - how many left/Remain commentators have focused their response on distancing themselves from Blair rather than picking up the ball and running with it. A lot of people who have been very passionate Remain voices have been very muted in their response. That may be tactical calculation or it may be personal discomfort with agreeing with Blair, but it’s kind of sad that the only person who can give a full-throated argument against the current unchecked march towards Brexit is apparently persona non grata.
Even though it was widely reported that people had changed their minds after Brexit the reports themselves were greatly exaggerated(if not false). Reporters in certain news outlets were desperately looking for any way to undermine the referendum result. In the weeks after the Brexit result a couple of polls indicated a few percentage of Brexit voters had changed their minds. These polls were shared all over the media & internet. Other polls that suggested the British public had not changed their minds were less widely reported. The poll results were not made-up but a narrative of Bregret was certainly made-up.
Nothing cynical in Blair - desperate to be relevant - attaching himself like a limpet to Remain.
I notice his speech was in a controlled environment and not in public - I guess we all know why.
Fuck off you appalling murderous cu*t.
Fun piece of polling from YouGov - perceptions from northern European countries are quite interesting: