How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Elysium said:
This article caught my attention this morning:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Oh good, I don't need to read any further. No Deal demonstrably not a "dead end"
Hopefully won't be long now
Elysium said:
This article caught my attention this morning:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Why is it that the debate has been defined as 'Deal / No Deal'?https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Theresa May did not negotiate any form of 'deal' - what she came up with was her much derided (by both Remainers and Leavers) 'Withdrawal Agreement'.
All this WA really was UK agreeing to pay a sum of money in order that the EU would then allow the UK to the table to do a 'deal'.. Maybe.
Remember EU rules forbade them (EU) doing a deal until we had actually left (the EU).
£39bn was the sum talked about. But. according to the House of Lords the UK isn't legally obliged to pay a penny
source: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/lds...
£39bn is £600 for every man, woman and child in the country......
Elysium said:
This article caught my attention this morning:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Usual remainer crap. If we did have a second referendum and it went to leave again, remainers wouldn't accept it.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Down and out said:
Elysium said:
This article caught my attention this morning:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Usual remainer crap. If we did have a second referendum and it went to leave again, remainers wouldn't accept it.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Down and out said:
Elysium said:
This article caught my attention this morning:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Usual remainer crap. If we did have a second referendum and it went to leave again, remainers wouldn't accept it.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Elysium said:
This article caught my attention this morning:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
A second referendum would be democratic...…...certainly more democratic than the decision than which took us in to the EU. We joined approx. 25 years ago and leave in October. 25 years later we can see how things are looking and have that second ref you're advocating in 2044. Most citizens think the EU will be gone before then though... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/15/majo...https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bor...
It neatly sums up the massive risk that Johnson will be taking if he pursues no-deal. Particularly if he attempts to do so by interfering with our democratically elected parliament.
The report is here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/197...
Whilst it has clearly been authored by a partisan group, its factual in nature and in neatly illustrates why our choices moving forward have reduced.
So lets talk about democracy and sovereignty. A second referendum is clearly democratic by its nature. It would be a chance for us to confirm our position now that the options have diminished to a two way race between no-deal and remain.
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Regarding point 1 above. What are you referring to? Who made that claim?
Regarding point 2 above...…. straightforward? A suitably vague and pretty meaningless term to be fair; the leave campaigners probably expected the negotiating team to try and leave rather than remain.
Regarding point 3. Probably true...…… a week is a long time in politics though.
Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 16th July 11:35
Elysium said:
In contrast, no-deal is profoundly undemocratic:
1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Ok so let me respond in order.1. The leave campaign promised in writing that it would not happen
2. Leave campaigners said repeatedly during the referendum build up that a deal would be straightforward
3. To make it happen Johnson would need to circumvent Parliament. Threatening the foundations of our constitution and democracy and riding roughshod over Parliamentary sovereignty. The very thing that Brexiteers said they were fighting for.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
2. Again can you share your source. And don't use the Fox quote where he said it should be but that politics would get in the way. That was a good example of someone from leave saying politics meant it would not be straightforward so there's my first example of leave saying it wouldn't be.
3. There are many ways no deal could happen without "circumventing parliament" (the same parliament who voted to make no deal the default position). Parliament may not make a decision to revoke A50 or ask us to extend, or the EU may refuse to grant an extension.
Also just so I'm clear, did you believe everything the remain campaign said because I certainly didn't believe everything that either campaign said and I did my own research on what I believe are key areas.
Elysium said:
That's not a report, it's a leaflet.Doesn't start off well, does it? "May ran out of options, and the debate has returned to options that have 'failed'.."
Good, so how about suggesting options that offer a way forward? Nope. Instead we get "let's have a vote we expect to undo Brexit". That's not even pretending to offer a solution, is it? It actually makes explicit their belief that only one option on a second referendum is 'possible', that they are trying to force a reversal of Brexit.
So why not be clear that is their proposal, rather than dressing it up as 'more democracy'? Well, the answer is obvious - they cannot be honest about that, so they have to dress it up as a 'report' that reads like a campaign leaflet.
It's a pity, because Grieve is reputed to be a smart person. Yet he's expending vast amounts of energy towards only one goal. If he had spent even a fraction of that energy on looking at practical choices we could make with the EU, we'd not be sitting around looking at May's disastrous withdrawal agreement.
The rest of the report is remarkable for basically saying "The EU is right on all points, therefore we must abandon all negotiations and options". Is that genuinely the view of a supposedly smart QC, and one that is meant to be representing the UK's interests?
2/10 must try harder.
Edited by Tuna on Tuesday 16th July 10:46
And I still can’t get it out of my head that people like grieve stood for election on a Conservative mandate that the U.K. must honour the 2016 referendum result, leave the E.U. Hypocrisy of the highest order, putting everything else to one side how can anybody trust people like him?
And some remainers still waffle on about democracy, incredible and utterly bereft of the meaning of the word.
And some remainers still waffle on about democracy, incredible and utterly bereft of the meaning of the word.
crankedup said:
And I still can’t get it out of my head that people like grieve stood for election on a Conservative mandate that the U.K. must honour the 2016 referendum result, leave the E.U. Hypocrisy of the highest order, putting everything else to one side how can anybody trust people like him?
And some remainers still waffle on about democracy, incredible and utterly bereft of the meaning of the word.
He shouldn't even be an MP, he lost a vote of no confidence and has been de-selected.And some remainers still waffle on about democracy, incredible and utterly bereft of the meaning of the word.
The honorable thing would have been to stand down and call a by-election.
Clearly he has no honour and is clinging on to a position he really shouldn't be occupying anymore to attempt to derail Brexit by fair means or foul.
Contemptible individual.
digimeistter said:
crankedup said:
And I still can’t get it out of my head that people like grieve stood for election on a Conservative mandate that the U.K. must honour the 2016 referendum result, leave the E.U. Hypocrisy of the highest order, putting everything else to one side how can anybody trust people like him?
And some remainers still waffle on about democracy, incredible and utterly bereft of the meaning of the word.
He shouldn't even be an MP, he lost a vote of no confidence and has been de-selected.And some remainers still waffle on about democracy, incredible and utterly bereft of the meaning of the word.
The honorable thing would have been to stand down and call a by-election.
Clearly he has no honour and is clinging on to a position he really shouldn't be occupying anymore to attempt to derail Brexit by fair means or foul.
Contemptible individual.
SunsetZed said:
Ok so let me respond in order.
1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
Nige claims he said this during the campaign but he is lying. 1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
www.thejournal.ie/nigel-farage-no-deal-bbc-fact-ch...
Mrr T said:
SunsetZed said:
Ok so let me respond in order.
1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
Nige claims he said this during the campaign but he is lying. 1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
www.thejournal.ie/nigel-farage-no-deal-bbc-fact-ch...
your article said:
Farage did however use a version of this phrase during the referendum campaign to compare no deal to the UK’s current EU membership. On 3 June 2016, he said “Even if our friends in France and Italy decide to cut off their noses to spite their faces…it will better than the rotten deal we have now.” And on 8 June 2016, he said “no deal is better than the rotten deal that we’ve got at the moment.”
digimeistter said:
He shouldn't even be an MP, he lost a vote of no confidence and has been de-selected.
The honorable thing would have been to stand down and call a by-election.
Clearly he has no honour and is clinging on to a position he really shouldn't be occupying anymore to attempt to derail Brexit by fair means or foul.
Contemptible individual.
The honourable thing would be for parties members to support their MP's. The honorable thing would have been to stand down and call a by-election.
Clearly he has no honour and is clinging on to a position he really shouldn't be occupying anymore to attempt to derail Brexit by fair means or foul.
Contemptible individual.
I note Conservative members are not trying to deselect, IDS, DD, Foxy, Steve Baker, John Redwood, all of whom are not representing the views of their constituencies.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.uk/news/poli...
amusingduck said:
Mrr T said:
SunsetZed said:
Ok so let me respond in order.
1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
Nige claims he said this during the campaign but he is lying. 1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
www.thejournal.ie/nigel-farage-no-deal-bbc-fact-ch...
your article said:
Farage did however use a version of this phrase during the referendum campaign to compare no deal to the UK’s current EU membership. On 3 June 2016, he said “Even if our friends in France and Italy decide to cut off their noses to spite their faces…it will better than the rotten deal we have now.” And on 8 June 2016, he said “no deal is better than the rotten deal that we’ve got at the moment.”
amusingduck said:
Mrr T said:
SunsetZed said:
Ok so let me respond in order.
1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
Nige claims he said this during the campaign but he is lying. 1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
www.thejournal.ie/nigel-farage-no-deal-bbc-fact-ch...
your article said:
Farage did however use a version of this phrase during the referendum campaign to compare no deal to the UK’s current EU membership. On 3 June 2016, he said “Even if our friends in France and Italy decide to cut off their noses to spite their faces…it will better than the rotten deal we have now.” And on 8 June 2016, he said “no deal is better than the rotten deal that we’ve got at the moment.”
your article said:
In a clip from the Andrew Marr Show in November 2015, played on the programme on Sunday, Farage advocated for the benefits of a negotiated exit with the EU and suggested that the UK would have little difficulty securing its own tailored deal: “Iceland and Switzerland can get deals that suit them. We can do something far far better than that.”
:rolleyes :Fittster said:
digimeistter said:
crankedup said:
And I still can’t get it out of my head that people like grieve stood for election on a Conservative mandate that the U.K. must honour the 2016 referendum result, leave the E.U. Hypocrisy of the highest order, putting everything else to one side how can anybody trust people like him?
And some remainers still waffle on about democracy, incredible and utterly bereft of the meaning of the word.
He shouldn't even be an MP, he lost a vote of no confidence and has been de-selected.And some remainers still waffle on about democracy, incredible and utterly bereft of the meaning of the word.
The honorable thing would have been to stand down and call a by-election.
Clearly he has no honour and is clinging on to a position he really shouldn't be occupying anymore to attempt to derail Brexit by fair means or foul.
Contemptible individual.
Mrr T said:
amusingduck said:
Mrr T said:
SunsetZed said:
Ok so let me respond in order.
1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
Nige claims he said this during the campaign but he is lying. 1. Who in the vote leave campaign said this? Can you share your source please. I know he wasn't part of the official leave campaign but Farage said on more than one occasion we may leave with no deal and that would be better than staying in.
www.thejournal.ie/nigel-farage-no-deal-bbc-fact-ch...
your article said:
Farage did however use a version of this phrase during the referendum campaign to compare no deal to the UK’s current EU membership. On 3 June 2016, he said “Even if our friends in France and Italy decide to cut off their noses to spite their faces…it will better than the rotten deal we have now.” And on 8 June 2016, he said “no deal is better than the rotten deal that we’ve got at the moment.”
your article said:
In a clip from the Andrew Marr Show in November 2015, played on the programme on Sunday, Farage advocated for the benefits of a negotiated exit with the EU and suggested that the UK would have little difficulty securing its own tailored deal: “Iceland and Switzerland can get deals that suit them. We can do something far far better than that.”
:rolleyes :Mrr T said:
The honourable thing would be for parties members to support their MP's.
I note Conservative members are not trying to deselect, IDS, DD, Foxy, Steve Baker, John Redwood, all of whom are not representing the views of their constituencies.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.uk/news/poli...
That's a remarkable bit of doublethink.I note Conservative members are not trying to deselect, IDS, DD, Foxy, Steve Baker, John Redwood, all of whom are not representing the views of their constituencies.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.uk/news/poli...
The members select MPs on the basis that those MPs are best able to represent the party. If the members stop believing that (having seen how the MP behaves), you think they should still support them on the grounds that... what exactly?
If the constituencies believe the MP is no longer representing their best interests, they have their own mechanism for replacing them - as just happened in Peterborough.
It's perfectly reasonable for party members to choose who they wish to represent the party on the grounds of unity, propriety and electability. If the Conservative party as a whole only wants Boris clones to represent them, that's their right - just as it is the right of the electorate to kick them out at the next available opportunity.
Edited by Tuna on Tuesday 16th July 13:14
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff