Brexit

[DBTrek]

Almost nobody is happy with May but she has now survived a vote of confidence from the Conservative 1922 backbench committee (the Tory procedural method of removing unwanted leaders) and a vote of no confidence in the Commons (the procedure for the opposition party to force a general election).
It appears that she will remain in power until the next scheduled GE in 2022 unless she chooses to step down of her own accord.

Apparently ''she can keep getting away with it''.

Blimey!
Well fuck that, eh mate?
Sounds like a jolly good time to provide the public another blitz of "proper information" and then hold a re-vote!
It's the British way, by Crikey!

[C-Mag]

Monte, if you guys are good with May I am too. I may not agree with the goofy shit you do, but not my country.

[Montegriffo]

The Queen should just abolish Parliament at this point.

She doesn't have that power constitutionally, in practice and the government just won a vote of no confidence.
The Queen only gets to dissolve the government at the request of Parliament after a general election.

Absolute monarchy was abolished by parliament after the civil war and her head would roll (figuratively speaking) if she tried.

Says here:

One of the monarch's historic prerogatives was the dissolution of Parliament, which was "perhaps the most important residual prerogative exercised personally by the sovereign, and represents the greatest potential for controversy."[15] This prerogative was normally exercised at the request of Parliament and the prime minister, either at his or her discretion or following a motion of no confidence. Constitutional theorists have had differing views as to whether a unilateral dissolution of Parliament would be possible today; Sir Ivor Jennings wrote that a dissolution involves "the acquiescence of ministers", and as such the monarch could not dissolve Parliament without ministerial consent; "if ministers refuse to give such advice, she can do no more than dismiss them". A. V. Dicey, however, believed that in certain extreme circumstances the monarch could dissolve Parliament single-handedly, on the condition that "an occasion has arisen on which there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors... A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation."[16]

The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this would inevitably lead to a government resigning. By convention, the monarch always assents to bills; the last time the royal assent was not given was in 1708 during the reign of Queen Anne when she withheld royal assent from the Scottish Militia Bill. This does not mean that the right to refuse has died: George V believed he could veto the Third Irish Home Rule Bill; Jennings writes that "it was assumed by the King throughout that he had not only the legal power but the constitutional right to refuse assent".[17] The royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament was abrogated by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Section 6(1) of the Act however specifically states that the monarch's power to prorogue Parliament is not affected by the Act.[ambiguous]

The appointment of the prime minister is also, theoretically, governed by the royal prerogative. Technically the monarch may appoint as prime minister anyone she wants to appoint, but in practice the appointee is always the person who commands a majority in the House of Commons. Usually, this is the leader of the political party that is returned to Parliament with a majority of seats after a general election. Difficulties may result with a so-called hung parliament, in which no party commands majority support, as last occurred in 2017. In this situation, constitutional convention is that the previous incumbent has the first right to form a coalition government and seek appointment.[18] If the prime minister decides to retire in the middle of a parliamentary session, as Anthony Eden did in 1957, the monarch has no discretion. There is usually a "prime minister-in-waiting" who commands the support of the majority of the Commons; he or she will near-automatically be appointed.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_pre ... egislature

I dunno. Seems like she does. But maybe there is no saving your dumpster fire of an island at this point anyway.

There is a theoretical possibility that she could although it is assumed that if she tried it Parliament would ignore her and immediately remove the power through an emergency act of Parliament.

The fact that nothing even resembling it has been attempted for over 300 years is evidence enough that, in practice, she has no such power.

[Montegriffo]

Monte, if you guys are good with May I am too. I may not agree with the goofy shit you do, but not my country.

Like I said, no one is particularly happy with her performance on Brexit but short of attempting violent removal through revolution or military coup it seems we are stuck with her until the next GE (in which she has indicated that she won't stand) unless she steps down voluntarily.

[DBTrek]

She should voluntarily kick you all in the Jimmy until your spines spontaneously regenerate.

Leave the EU already.

[Fife]

Almost nobody is happy with May but she has now survived a vote of confidence from the Conservative 1922 backbench committee (the Tory procedural method of removing unwanted leaders) and a vote of no confidence in the Commons (the procedure for the opposition party to force a general election).
It appears that she will remain in power until the next scheduled GE in 2022 unless she chooses to step down of her own accord.

Apparently ''she can keep getting away with it''.

Blimey!
Well fuck that, eh mate?
Sounds like a jolly good time to provide the public another blitz of "proper information" and then hold a re-vote!
It's the British way, by Crikey!

Oi oi! Bloody 'ell m8 let me in on the outcome, me bloody telly loisense is all bollocks

[DBTrek]

Martin needs to implement "British Poll" as a feature on the website.

You know, a poll where you can populate the desired outcome beforehand, and simply force users to re-take the poll again and again until they provide the right answers.

[BjornP]

Sure, some people voted out purely on grounds of immigration.

Most voted because they were worried about the question of (lessening of) British sovereignty. As in they had voted out because they were worried about the direction the EU's taken since Britain joined and how it might affect future British sovereignty. But hey, it's easier to just jump straight to the clueless racists who just don't get that

I cut the rest of your post because it, again, just referenced your apparant view that it should be economic motivations that trump all other factors.

You have no evidence for the reasons most people voted to leave.
There were multiple reasons varying from fears over sovereignty to disaffection with Tory austerity policies. Reasons also included immigration, rules about the bendiness of bananas (although none actually exist) and lies about £350 million pounds a week to spend on the NHS.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/h ... d-and-why/

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”

Referencing a YouGov poll on the same question:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/0 ... ice-versa/

First, YouGov asked Leave and Remain voters to say which reason from a list of eight was the most important when deciding how to vote in the referendum. The most frequently selected reason among Leave voters – ticked by 45% – was ‘to strike a better balance between Britain’s right to act independently, and the appropriate level of co-operation with other countries’. The second most frequently selected reason among Leave voters – ticked by 26% – was ‘to help us deal better with the issue of immigration’.

[Montegriffo]

She should voluntarily kick you all in the Jimmy until your spines spontaneously regenerate.

Leave the EU already.

You're like one of those halfwit drones that call radio phone-ins and keep repeating ''leave means leave'' without offering any mechanism for actually doing it.
The whole point of this current mess is that no one can actually agree what leave means. There are multiple suggestions of what leave means varying from Norway style half in half out to crashing out without a negotiated deal.
There is no consensus for any mechanism and more people oppose each version than approve of it.

[DBTrek]

Leave means leave, bro.
Stop the yapping and get to stepping.