FAO House of Commons - your Queen wants a word... listen up you bunch of muppets

[Zak33]

As we look for new answers in the modern age, I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes, like speaking well of each other and respecting different points of view; coming together to seek out the common ground; and never losing sight of the bigger picture

You see, she's being polite even when she wants to hunt you down and feed you to the Corgis. Because being respectful works Always has.

Lets be clear... Elizabeth HAS seen it all before. And she's always helped the wiser PM's to make the right decision. Many of them respected her word AND ability to deliver deals that were beyond them...by being... the Queen
She doesn't just sit at Buck House drinking tea, or whipping round Sandringham with the corgis. She works for her country, 24/7/365 SINCE 1952!!!!

She talks to people.. all around the world... and fixes stuff. She's done it since you were ALL in NAPPIES and being breast fed by your mummies.

Here are the people she's had as her Prime Ministers - if you think she's not played a role... dream on while you read all the people JUST in the UK who have been her PM
Churchill
Eden
Macmillan
Wilson
Heath
Callaghan
Thatcher
Major
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May

Now when she says "I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes, like speaking well of each other and respecting different points of view" she means this

SORT YOUR STUFF OUT, MEND THE COUNTRY AND STOP BITCHING AT EACH OTHER

this is NOT a political back stabbing game anymore... it's about the UK not being canon fodder.

Clear....? Capiche?

Around the entire world she also has contact with and supports PM's from: Antigua Barbuda Australia Bahamas Belize Canada Gwenada Jamaica New Zealand Papua New Guinea Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent The Solomon Island Tuval and she USED to have the boys and girls report in Ceylon Fiji Gambia Ghana Guyana Kenya Malawi Malta Mauritius Nigeria Pakistan Sirra Leone South Africa Tanganyika Trinidad and Tobago and Uganda

What does all that mean? It means she's wise....

like ..like.... Gandalf in pink, or Confuscious in a dress, or Lincoln with a much shorter hat.....Socrates without the bed sheet ....

So the message, while subtle and mild mannered is this - mend it. Show respect. And be nice.

[spacein_vader]

You see, she's being polite even when she wants to hunt you down and feed you to the Corgis. Because being respectful works Always has.

Lets be clear... Elizabeth HAS seen it all before. And she's always helped the wiser PM's to make the right decision. Many of them respected her word AND ability to deliver deals that were beyond them...by being... the Queen
She doesn't just sit at Buck House drinking tea, or whipping round Sandringham with the corgis. She works for her country, 24/7/365 SINCE 1952!!!!

She talks to people.. all around the world... and fixes stuff. She's done it since you were ALL in NAPPIES and being breast fed by your mummies.

Here are the people she's had as her Prime Ministers - if you think she's not played a role... dream on while you read all the people JUST in the UK who have been her PM
Churchill
Eden
Macmillan
Wilson
Heath
Callaghan
Thatcher
Major
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May

Now when she says "I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes, like speaking well of each other and respecting different points of view" she means this

SORT YOUR STUFF OUT, MEND THE COUNTRY AND STOP BITCHING AT EACH OTHER

this is NOT a political back stabbing game anymore... it's about the UK not being canon fodder.

Clear....? Capiche?

Around the entire world she also has contact with and supports PM's from: Antigua Barbuda Australia Bahamas Belize Canada Gwenada Jamaica New Zealand Papua New Guinea Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent The Solomon Island Tuval and she USED to have the boys and girls report in Ceylon Fiji Gambia Ghana Guyana Kenya Malawi Malta Mauritius Nigeria Pakistan Sirra Leone South Africa Tanganyika Trinidad and Tobago and Uganda

What does all that mean? It means she's wise....

like ..like.... Gandalf in pink, or Confuscious in a dress, or Lincoln with a much shorter hat.....Socrates without the bed sheet ....

So the message, while subtle and mild mannered is this - mend it. Show respect. And be nice.

Alternatively she's a figurehead who has to sign whatever the PM of the time puts in front of her and she's just talking about very general common sense that could have been provided by just about anyone who isn't an MP.

[Corky34]

I do wonder in these times what the PMs weekly meeting with the Queen must be like, that's still a thing right?

[Zak33]

Alternatively she's a figurehead who has to sign whatever the PM of the time puts in front of her and she's just talking about very general common sense that could have been provided by just about anyone who isn't an MP.

all true... except they might listen to her..cos they're not listening to us

[Corky34]

To be fair they don't have to listen as we're a representative democracy.



That video isn't me making any comment on current affairs BTW, it just explains some of the reasons why IMO that we use representative democracies.

[Galant]

To be fair they don't have to listen as we're a representative democracy.

Don't really see what's fair about that. It's not a game. They're elected representatives who chose to take a particular issue directly to the populace to decide and then said they'd represent that decision. Now the decision has come through they're opting to not represent that choice but instead do what they want to do supposedly on the mandate that that's what the people put them there to do? TLDR - We're ignoring you, and our own word, because you elected us to do so.

I'd rather say that the referendum bound them to pursue a certain goal, even contrary to their own opinion, because it was a particular instance, of their own choosing, where the will of the people was made clear.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that the government were elected as representatives in large part because they promised to give the people this choice.

So no, it's not fair. They've got a job to do - representing the people - they're just looking for ways to not do it.


Regardless, the Queen's advice noted here in the OP, says less about any specific vote or result, and far more about the current state of politics, and, dare I say, wider society. In an age seen as more advanced, progressive and tolerant than any before it, I wonder if in fact we're not growing far less liberal and tolerant.

Pragmatism should rule the day here, but apparently that sort of thing is old hat.

[spacein_vader]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...20190125181794

Contains grown up words

[philehidiot]

Alternatively she's a figurehead who has to sign whatever the PM of the time puts in front of her and she's just talking about very general common sense that could have been provided by just about anyone who isn't an MP.

If she's decided to come out with a general thing about common sense worded like this right now then she's quite retarded, it's a massive coincidence or the universe is playing a joke. It's not possible for it to be a coincidence that we are in this situation and she comes out with some advice directly applicable to the mess we're in. She's obviously making a point whilst staying as politically neutral as possible (with a little plausible deniability) as she sees just how bad this situation and backstabbing and patheticness is for the UK. Yes, her position limits her practically but she has an awesome amount of soft power.

Unfortunately when the Queen has to step in like this, it may be eloquently and diplomatically phrased but it's the equivilant of the headmaster having to get out the cane in front of the school. It's our elected politicians being given the most brutal rebuke possible outside of an election cycle.

[philehidiot]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...20190125181794

Contains grown up words

HA! Oh I can't wait to see what Private Eye says about this.

[Corky34]

Don't really see what's fair about that. It's not a game. They're elected representatives who chose to take a particular issue directly to the populace to decide and then said they'd represent that decision. Now the decision has come through they're opting to not represent that choice but instead do what they want to do supposedly on the mandate that that's what the people put them there to do? TLDR - We're ignoring you, and our own word, because you elected us to do so.

I didn't say it was fair, i said that's what we have and arguably for very good reasons.

Sure we can say "they're elected representatives who chose to take a particular issue directly to the populace to decide and then said they'd represent that decision" but that's an example of how badly our politicians have, IMO utterly, failed and shirked their responsibilities.

I'd rather say that the referendum bound them to pursue a certain goal, even contrary to their own opinion, because it was a particular instance, of their own choosing, where the will of the people was made clear.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that the government were elected as representatives in large part because they promised to give the people this choice.

So no, it's not fair. They've got a job to do - representing the people - they're just looking for ways to not do it.

I'd say the will of the people was not made clear but that's probably just rehashing things. However everything else you say, that they promised to hold a referendum, that they're looking for ways to not do it, etc, etc. I agree with but that just goes to show how utterly politicians, for decades and of all colours, have been failing.

Regardless, the Queen's advice noted here in the OP, says less about any specific vote or result, and far more about the current state of politics, and, dare I say, wider society. In an age seen as more advanced, progressive and tolerant than any before it, I wonder if in fact we're not growing far less liberal and tolerant.

Pragmatism should rule the day here, but apparently that sort of thing is old hat.

Indeed and it's why I'm trying to steer clear of rehashing the referendum, however IMO the situation we're in is entirely of the politicians own making, granted it's taken decades for the chickens to come home to roost but that's what happens when you have a constant lack of political discourse, politicians, to use Plato's analogy, are meant to make the arguments for why a bitter potion is necessary and why you can't eat and drink whatever you like.

[Zak33]

Regardless, the Queen's advice noted here in the OP, says less about any specific vote or result, and far more about the current state of politics, and, dare I say, wider society. In an age seen as more advanced, progressive and tolerant than any before it, I wonder if in fact we're not growing far less liberal and tolerant.

Pragmatism should rule the day here, but apparently that sort of thing is old hat.

ex_Zakly... in a nut shell.

[Zak33]

She's obviously making a point whilst staying as politically neutral as possible (with a little plausible deniability) as she sees just how bad this situation and backstabbing and patheticness is for the UK. Yes, her position limits her practically but she has an awesome amount of soft power.

Unfortunately when the Queen has to step in like this, it may be eloquently and diplomatically phrased but it's the equivilant of the headmaster having to get out the cane in front of the school. It's our elected politicians being given the most brutal rebuke possible outside of an election cycle.

and this too... ex_Zakly right.

[Ttaskmaster]

I'd rather say that the referendum bound them to pursue a certain goal, even contrary to their own opinion, because it was a particular instance, of their own choosing, where the will of the people was made clear.

Pretty sure there was a caveat mentioned regarding the referendum, in that it wasn't ultimately binding in any legal sense? It was supposedly just a glorified opinion poll, and that if MPs really felt that Brexiting would be unacceptably detrimental to the UK then they still had the power to overturn it. More so these days since, contrary to popular opinion, threatening to leave did not make the EU come gushing over to hug us and furnish us with riches... kinda the opposite, really. They basically just said, "Yep, fine. Door is that way. Do let it hit your bum on the way out. Leave your ID pass with security and surrender all your cool stuff. No, don't bother cleaning out your desk, we claimed that stuff ages ago. Best of luck down at the Jobcentre, though I hear doormats aren't really in demand and China's are cheaper. Toodle-pip Rosbifs, tally-ho and jolly good".

In addition, they can simply call a second referendum, on the basis that no-one had a clear idea of what things would be like when they voted in the first, and we now have the whole Deal/No-Deal to fuss over. We still have no exact picture of what it will be like, but we do still have a slightly better idea than before, and people have at least made some effort to actually understand what it is they voted on.... even if they did it bass ackwards!

[philehidiot]

I believe all referendums are advisory, this was one of the first arguments brought in to try and nullify the result but Rees-Mogg explained the legal/constitutional underpinning quite succinctly and clearly in the Commons and after that, it appeared to be put to bed. Regardless, we're past that now as it is written into law that we leave in March and it would require a commons vote to repeal that. Given the adgenda of the Commons is set by the government, this is unlikely to ever get close to happening.

Actually, the EU have tried to cling onto control of us and our money whilst letting us "leave". No one in the EU wants a "door that way" no-deal as they aren't entitled to any money. Article 50 says a member state can leave according to their own constitutional requirements which means we can just repeal the European Communities Act, transcibe the entire body of supranational law into our national law for convenience and repeal as required down the road and be done with it. It'd be disruptive and that's why the essential agreements on trade, overflight, etc are being sorted.

The biggest risk to us post-"nod deal" Brexit is an unanticipated problem that we can't plan for. They come out with all this "well if this happens then this could happen and it'll be terrible" - we can plan for that. It's the unforseen we can't plan for which is an even greater risk (with a similar hazard) as this kind of thing hasn't been done before with such deep legal integration. It's probably going to be throwing up problems for years.

[Mr_Jon]

...Socrates without the football ...

fixed

[Ttaskmaster]

I believe all referendums are advisory, this was one of the first arguments brought in to try and nullify the result but Rees-Mogg explained the legal/constitutional underpinning quite succinctly and clearly in the Commons and after that, it appeared to be put to bed. Regardless, we're past that now as it is written into law that we leave in March and it would require a commons vote to repeal that. Given the adgenda of the Commons is set by the government, this is unlikely to ever get close to happening.

At Prime Minister's Questions, she told MPs delaying Brexit would not "solve the situation", adding: "The decision remains the same - the deal, no-deal or no Brexit."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46971390

So they could indeed still vote No Brexit, if things looked to them like they'd be really really bad for the UK... It all comes down to how they justify it, as to whether they'd remain in power, let alone retain any public trust. They'll have a lot of people to convince.

But then, we live in an age where we're told no-one would be silly enough to vote Trump into power...!!