Cameron and Osbourne, dead men walking??
Discussion
BlackLabel said:
Speaking of dead people.....
George Osborne has been criticised after reportedly claiming he will not rest until Theresa May is "chopped up in bags in my freezer". The former Chancellor-turned-newspaper editor made the remark about the Prime Minister "to more than one person", according to a profile in Esquire.
Perhaps he is just hungry?George Osborne has been criticised after reportedly claiming he will not rest until Theresa May is "chopped up in bags in my freezer". The former Chancellor-turned-newspaper editor made the remark about the Prime Minister "to more than one person", according to a profile in Esquire.
telegraph said:
The profile in Esquire highlighted the way Mr Osborne had used his editorship of the London Evening Standard to criticise Mrs May's leadership.
It said: "According to one staffer at the newspaper, Osborne has told more than one person that he will not rest until she 'is chopped up in bags in my freezer'."
It said: "According to one staffer at the newspaper, Osborne has told more than one person that he will not rest until she 'is chopped up in bags in my freezer'."
BlackLabel said:
Poor Dave.
Serves him right for being so lazy. He should have been much tougher on Brussels, used the full time available to hold the referendum and made the referendum one that required a proper majority for change. In Australia, they require a majority of voters, with compulsory voting. Other countries require special majorities of 2/3 or 3/4. Changes to the constitutional documents of companies require such special majorities. To allow such a massive change on the basis of a simple majority of the turnout was utterly irresponsible.Yes, pan3, I know there was no vote on entry or on subsequent treaties. That's because we have a parliamentary democracy. Referenda are not the way we do things.
Zod said:
Serves him right for being so lazy. He should have been much tougher on Brussels, used the full time available to hold the referendum and made the referendum one that required a proper majority for change. In Australia, they require a majority of voters, with compulsory voting. Other countries require special majorities of 2/3 or 3/4. Changes to the constitutional documents of companies require such special majorities. To allow such a massive change on the basis of a simple majority of the turnout was utterly irresponsible.
Yes, pan3, I know there was no vote on entry or on subsequent treaties. That's because we have a parliamentary democracy. Referenda are not the way we do things.
The way I see it if he had just been straight about it he would have come out of it ok.Yes, pan3, I know there was no vote on entry or on subsequent treaties. That's because we have a parliamentary democracy. Referenda are not the way we do things.
He started out saying the current arrangements aren't good enough and he would negotiate something better.
Even if he had just admitted that the negotiations had not resulted in as many concessions as he had hoped for and therefore he would be neutral in the referendum campaign it would have been enough.
The 2/3 or 3/4 majority thing is BS. Imagine if 60% had voted to leave but it counted for nothing because we require 66.6% to do anything! Apart from anything else we joined with no vote whatsoever!
Zod said:
Serves him right for being so lazy. He should have been much tougher on Brussels, used the full time available to hold the referendum and made the referendum one that required a proper majority for change. In Australia, they require a majority of voters, with compulsory voting. Other countries require special majorities of 2/3 or 3/4. Changes to the constitutional documents of companies require such special majorities. To allow such a massive change on the basis of a simple majority of the turnout was utterly irresponsible.
Yes, pan3, I know there was no vote on entry or on subsequent treaties. That's because we have a parliamentary democracy. Referenda are not the way we do things.
Compulsory voting in Australia isn't all that hot y'know - the "punishment" for not doing so is a pittance of a fine, twenty five to thirty dollars IIRC and you can always spoil a ballot paper. Refuse to pay the fine and they do diddly squat for the most part - they have attempted to fine hundreds of thousands of people in the past, only a tiny minority bother to pay upYes, pan3, I know there was no vote on entry or on subsequent treaties. That's because we have a parliamentary democracy. Referenda are not the way we do things.
Zod said:
Serves him right for being so lazy. He should have been much tougher on Brussels, used the full time available to hold the referendum and made the referendum one that required a proper majority for change. In Australia, they require a majority of voters, with compulsory voting. Other countries require special majorities of 2/3 or 3/4. Changes to the constitutional documents of companies require such special majorities. To allow such a massive change on the basis of a simple majority of the turnout was utterly irresponsible.
Would Cameron have been able to pass the referendum act if it had required a special majority?It is easy to say he should have negotiated harder but it takes 2 to tango and I don't think Juncker was at all interested in negotiating. In hindsight you can see why Cameron didn't want such an arch federalist as President of the EC.
Zod said:
Well, I addressed the no vote to join point. Did we vote to join NATO, the UN?
As for a larger majority being BS, it just isn't for the reasons I explained.
NATO is a very, very different kind of organisation. As is the UN. They don't have ultimate say on how we run ourselves for starters. As for a larger majority being BS, it just isn't for the reasons I explained.
Your argument on the larger majority isn't strong, no matter how desirable a more decisive margin of victory would have been. Hayek's is just as reasonable - I'd say more so. If 66% had voted out, would it have been right to stay? Not for very nearly 2/3s of the country it wouldn't.
Referenda are, IMO, a useful part of our system for circumstances where handing over material ruling powers is concerned. Those we elect shouldn't then be able to do this without us having a say.
As for Cameron, boo hoo. There are so many things he could have done differently, up to and including not resigning after the result didn't go his way. I'm sure his financial position will help him sleep at night.
Both he and Boy George showed their true colours during campaigning and the aftermath unfortunately. Neither will be seen favourably in the overall scheme of things by anyone.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff