EU Referendum - In/Out?

[Ashley]

Are you saying that if people realised for example that Leadsom could become PM they would think something along the lines of:

 

"oh.. I love this MP, they do a great job, but we can't have Leadsom as a PM... let's vote for this shitty MP I never heard of/hate the policies they support"?

Crazy.

 

I'm just saying what was voted for in 2015 is not what we're going to have. I'm not saying it's a particularly strong argument, but nor was the "unelected officials bad, get rid!" that was bounded around.

 

As I understand it, if I got enough of the elected officials to agree, I could become president of the European Commission or council, without any other european ever having heard my name. Obviously that is pretty much impossible, I would need to work hard to get that kind of influence, but what I would not need would be to be approved by the general public, I would only need to gain influence with the right politicians. That is undemocratic in my view.

 

Yes we have unelected officials, but an unelected president? As it stands the EU commission and council don't have THAT much power, but the direction of the EU is moving towards greater power - especially with this ever closer union ideology. As the power of the EU increases, so would the power of these presidents. It does need to be addressed imo. Unelected officials should be to aide elected officials, not to preside over them.

 

You get a bunch of elected officials to agree that you should be in charge. Isn't this what May and Leadsom are doing at the moment? Yes they also have the party membership, but it's such a small subset of the population it's not like there's a significant representation of the British public having their say here. Juncker was an elected official at the point he became President of the EU in the same way May and Leadsom are elected officials and are looking to lead the Tory party. He was elected by the people of Luxembourg, May/Leadsom were elected by their constituents. Large swathes of the population (Europe and UK respectively) did not have any say in them being elected, but they ended up (/will end up) in charge of their respective political bodies because of people that were elected decided (/will decide) that is best.

 

We have an unelected head of state don't forget (even though she does sod all in reality I know)

[Pestneb]

I'm just saying what was voted for in 2015 is not what we're going to have. I'm not saying it's a particularly strong argument, but nor was the "unelected officials bad, get rid!" that was bounded around.

Really? what manifesto promises have the candidates said they will abandon?

I hadn't heard about that.

 

You get a bunch of elected officials to agree that you should be in charge. Isn't this what May and Leadsom are doing at the moment? Yes they also have the party membership, but it's such a small subset of the population it's not like there's a significant representation of the British public having their say here. Juncker was an elected official at the point he became President of the EU in the same way May and Leadsom are elected officials and are looking to lead the Tory party. He was elected by the people of Luxembourg, May/Leadsom were elected by their constituents. Large swathes of the population (Europe and UK respectively) did not have any say in them being elected, but they ended up (/will end up) in charge of their respective political bodies because of people that were elected decided (/will decide) that is best.

 

We have an unelected head of state don't forget (even though she does sod all in reality I know)

 

Fair enough on Juncker, I didn't look into his background, but Tusk wasn't afaik an elected official.

 

There is a difference though.. May and Leadsom are affiliated to the conservative party. Each MP has declared allegiance to their party (unless they are independent) So there is a vague idea of what the PM will be like. We don't need to know the individual to have a vague understanding of what we would generally expect from a tory/labour/lib dem pm. So when we vote, even though there is a small disconnect, we have some way of steering the general outlook of the PM. If the PM doesn't conform well to the way we expected the PM to perform, it will drive votes to other parties.. so there is indirect influence on him and a direct impact on the party if they choose their leader poorly.

 

In the EU scenario, while there are loose affiliations, those are tough to pick out, the are no supranational political parties. I presume the voting is anonymous for those elected officials who voted Juncker in? If so how do we, as people of Europe know how to vote in our MEPs?

Oh, this President is too right wing, he must have been supported by Tories/UKIP... lets vote Green... when actually it was the green party who voted for that president most strongly...

 

I hope I made my point clearly there...

[Pestneb]

I'm just saying what was voted for in 2015 is not what we're going to have. I'm not saying it's a particularly strong argument, but nor was the "unelected officials bad, get rid!" that was bounded around.

Really? what manifesto promises have the candidates said they will abandon?

I hadn't heard about that.

 

You get a bunch of elected officials to agree that you should be in charge. Isn't this what May and Leadsom are doing at the moment? Yes they also have the party membership, but it's such a small subset of the population it's not like there's a significant representation of the British public having their say here. Juncker was an elected official at the point he became President of the EU in the same way May and Leadsom are elected officials and are looking to lead the Tory party. He was elected by the people of Luxembourg, May/Leadsom were elected by their constituents. Large swathes of the population (Europe and UK respectively) did not have any say in them being elected, but they ended up (/will end up) in charge of their respective political bodies because of people that were elected decided (/will decide) that is best.

 

We have an unelected head of state don't forget (even though she does sod all in reality I know)

 

Fair enough on Juncker, I didn't look into his background, but Tusk wasn't afaik an elected official.

 

There is a difference though.. May and Leadsom are affiliated to the conservative party. Each MP has declared allegiance to their party (unless they are independent) So there is a vague idea of what the PM will be like. We don't need to know the individual to have a vague understanding of what we would generally expect from a tory/labour/lib dem pm. So when we vote, even though there is a small disconnect, we have some way of steering the general outlook of the PM. If the PM doesn't conform well to the way we expected the PM to perform, it will drive votes to other parties.. so there is indirect influence on him and a direct impact on the party if they choose their leader poorly.

 

In the EU scenario, while there are loose affiliations, those are tough to pick out, the are no supranational political parties. I presume the voting is anonymous for those elected officials who voted Juncker in? If so how do we, as people of Europe know how to vote in our MEPs?

Oh, this President is too right wing, he must have been supported by Tories/UKIP... lets vote Green... when actually it was the green party who voted for that president most strongly...

 

I hope I made my point clearly there...

[Ashley]

Really? what manifesto promises have the candidates said they will abandon?

I hadn't heard about that.

 

None yet and hopefully it won't happen. However, Leadsom has said she'd like to have a vote on reversing the fox hunting ban which isn't in the mandate. I know issues crop up and thus we're going to have legislation passed during a government that wasn't in the mandate (e.g. something like the Iraq War wasn't in any mandate, but the circumstances changed during government). If she wishes to vote on fox hunting it would be fair to only do so after the next election making it clear that is part of her mandate, if not she just comes across as trying to use her powers to get what she wants. Plus there are many more pressing issues that the government should be addressing and I don't think the electorate at large are crying out for fox hunting to come back.

 

I'm just concerned that she a) has no idea what she's doing (she's in over her fucking head) and b) thinks she can do what she wants.

 

Fair enough on Juncker, I didn't look into his background, but Tusk wasn't afaik an elected official.

 

There is a difference though.. May and Leadsom are affiliated to the conservative party. Each MP has declared allegiance to their party (unless they are independent) So there is a vague idea of what the PM will be like. We don't need to know the individual to have a vague understanding of what we would generally expect from a tory/labour/lib dem pm. So when we vote, even though there is a small disconnect, we have some way of steering the general outlook of the PM. If the PM doesn't conform well to the way we expected the PM to perform, it will drive votes to other parties.. so there is indirect influence on him and a direct impact on the party if they choose their leader poorly.

 

In the EU scenario, while there are loose affiliations, those are tough to pick out, the are no supranational political parties. I presume the voting is anonymous for those elected officials who voted Juncker in? If so how do we, as people of Europe know how to vote in our MEPs?

Oh, this President is too right wing, he must have been supported by Tories/UKIP... lets vote Green... when actually it was the green party who voted for that president most strongly...

 

I hope I made my point clearly there...

 

He was Prime Minister of Poland when elected.

 

There's no supranational (supernatural) political parties, but a loose argument could be made there are the same kind of parties in each country (far right, far left, centre-right, centre-left etc), but as I say its only a loose point to be made if you wish.

 

I have no idea how the voting is done to be honest. Part of the problem is we (as a nation) have a bad history of electing MEPs to moan about how they don't want to be in Europe rather than try and affect change (even if they are moaning, at least try and do something about it) which hasn't helped matters.

 

Just to be clear I'm not trying to say the two situations are exactly the same or the unelected officials argument was completely flawed, it's just you can draw parallels and you can define "unelected" however you wish (as these people were elected, but we don't get a say in other areas - but the same is true across UK constitutions) and that's also part of the problem. One person's unelected is another elected because they are both. Schrodinger's democracy if you will.

 

My essential point was there are elements and interpretations of the EU that could be seen as unelected. The same is true for our current situation. It's a bit complicated mess obviously, but it just seems like it was bad for EU but it is fine (or not considered the same) for the UK when elements are certainly similar.

[Ashley]

Really? what manifesto promises have the candidates said they will abandon?

I hadn't heard about that.

 

None yet and hopefully it won't happen. However, Leadsom has said she'd like to have a vote on reversing the fox hunting ban which isn't in the mandate. I know issues crop up and thus we're going to have legislation passed during a government that wasn't in the mandate (e.g. something like the Iraq War wasn't in any mandate, but the circumstances changed during government). If she wishes to vote on fox hunting it would be fair to only do so after the next election making it clear that is part of her mandate, if not she just comes across as trying to use her powers to get what she wants. Plus there are many more pressing issues that the government should be addressing and I don't think the electorate at large are crying out for fox hunting to come back.

 

I'm just concerned that she a) has no idea what she's doing (she's in over her fucking head) and b) thinks she can do what she wants.

 

Fair enough on Juncker, I didn't look into his background, but Tusk wasn't afaik an elected official.

 

There is a difference though.. May and Leadsom are affiliated to the conservative party. Each MP has declared allegiance to their party (unless they are independent) So there is a vague idea of what the PM will be like. We don't need to know the individual to have a vague understanding of what we would generally expect from a tory/labour/lib dem pm. So when we vote, even though there is a small disconnect, we have some way of steering the general outlook of the PM. If the PM doesn't conform well to the way we expected the PM to perform, it will drive votes to other parties.. so there is indirect influence on him and a direct impact on the party if they choose their leader poorly.

 

In the EU scenario, while there are loose affiliations, those are tough to pick out, the are no supranational political parties. I presume the voting is anonymous for those elected officials who voted Juncker in? If so how do we, as people of Europe know how to vote in our MEPs?

Oh, this President is too right wing, he must have been supported by Tories/UKIP... lets vote Green... when actually it was the green party who voted for that president most strongly...

 

I hope I made my point clearly there...

 

He was Prime Minister of Poland when elected.

 

There's no supranational (supernatural) political parties, but a loose argument could be made there are the same kind of parties in each country (far right, far left, centre-right, centre-left etc), but as I say its only a loose point to be made if you wish.

 

I have no idea how the voting is done to be honest. Part of the problem is we (as a nation) have a bad history of electing MEPs to moan about how they don't want to be in Europe rather than try and affect change (even if they are moaning, at least try and do something about it) which hasn't helped matters.

 

Just to be clear I'm not trying to say the two situations are exactly the same or the unelected officials argument was completely flawed, it's just you can draw parallels and you can define "unelected" however you wish (as these people were elected, but we don't get a say in other areas - but the same is true across UK constitutions) and that's also part of the problem. One person's unelected is another elected because they are both. Schrodinger's democracy if you will.

 

My essential point was there are elements and interpretations of the EU that could be seen as unelected. The same is true for our current situation. It's a bit complicated mess obviously, but it just seems like it was bad for EU but it is fine (or not considered the same) for the UK when elements are certainly similar.

[Kav]

[tweet]751670650268487680[/tweet]

[Kav]

[tweet]751670650268487680[/tweet]

[Pestneb]

 

He was Prime Minister of Poland when elected.

But he was never an elected official as the President in the EU. His presidency ended over a couple of months before that.. but regardless, it is what it is and I don't see it changing.

 

My essential point was there are elements and interpretations of the EU that could be seen as unelected. The same is true for our current situation. It's a bit complicated mess obviously, but it just seems like it was bad for EU but it is fine (or not considered the same) for the UK when elements are certainly similar.

Seeing as it is a games site... it's like saying the Wii U is able to access the internet, with games like splatoon and mk8 (which even has voice chat.. *cough*) and wondering why people have secondary consoles like the X1 and PS4.. internet is internet, right?

 

I think the main issues with the EU from the UK point of view

 

1) it's a scape goat. I think to an extent it is true... but now the scape goat is (perhaps) gone, it will be interesting to see what politicians do.

 

2) it tried to "progress" too quickly. I think that is responsible for the sentiments that have seen a strong rise in eurosceptism over the last few years in particular. If it wasn't Britain it would have been another nation. Although tbh, I think the UK was about the worst eurosceptic nation for them to lose, in terms of the clout that the EU has lost through this. I am very curious to see what implications this has across the continent, with budgets.. will the net givers in the EU be required to give more? or the receivers get less? or both?

 

But now, all there is to do is our very best, and of course to hope for the best. time to knuckle down! One thing I would say.. the UK public needs to engage a lot more and make the government work FOR them. Hold them accountable, push through reforms and make the UK a better place for the average person. Not saying that wasn't possible in the EU, but just saying in general, people need to be less lethargic and more proactive!

[Pestneb]

 

He was Prime Minister of Poland when elected.

But he was never an elected official as the President in the EU. His presidency ended over a couple of months before that.. but regardless, it is what it is and I don't see it changing.

 

My essential point was there are elements and interpretations of the EU that could be seen as unelected. The same is true for our current situation. It's a bit complicated mess obviously, but it just seems like it was bad for EU but it is fine (or not considered the same) for the UK when elements are certainly similar.

Seeing as it is a games site... it's like saying the Wii U is able to access the internet, with games like splatoon and mk8 (which even has voice chat.. *cough*) and wondering why people have secondary consoles like the X1 and PS4.. internet is internet, right?

 

I think the main issues with the EU from the UK point of view

 

1) it's a scape goat. I think to an extent it is true... but now the scape goat is (perhaps) gone, it will be interesting to see what politicians do.

 

2) it tried to "progress" too quickly. I think that is responsible for the sentiments that have seen a strong rise in eurosceptism over the last few years in particular. If it wasn't Britain it would have been another nation. Although tbh, I think the UK was about the worst eurosceptic nation for them to lose, in terms of the clout that the EU has lost through this. I am very curious to see what implications this has across the continent, with budgets.. will the net givers in the EU be required to give more? or the receivers get less? or both?

 

But now, all there is to do is our very best, and of course to hope for the best. time to knuckle down! One thing I would say.. the UK public needs to engage a lot more and make the government work FOR them. Hold them accountable, push through reforms and make the UK a better place for the average person. Not saying that wasn't possible in the EU, but just saying in general, people need to be less lethargic and more proactive!

[Rummy]

2) Like it or not, she is democratically elected. We never have a choice over who is chosen as PM. If the Tories had won the general election but Cameron had lost his seat, he wouldn't have been PM. simple.

 

Has that ever happened though? Whilst a technical possibility I just can't see the chances of it happening being very high. I know it's not the right way, but a lot of people vote depending on the party's leader, and if that party leader happens to be your MP, aren't you already likely to be in an area heavily in favour of them?

 

I think it's also technically possible for a PM to not have to win their election if the party wins but they don't providing they can lead the party. Bit of a grey area as it's never happened, but I don't think there is any legislation that they have to (and they would likely be replaced if it really did, but don't believe it's a necessity).

 

I think this is in line with the above point but...wat?? I didn't fully understand what you're saying(jumbling of the englishes, I think).

[Rummy]

2) Like it or not, she is democratically elected. We never have a choice over who is chosen as PM. If the Tories had won the general election but Cameron had lost his seat, he wouldn't have been PM. simple.

 

Has that ever happened though? Whilst a technical possibility I just can't see the chances of it happening being very high. I know it's not the right way, but a lot of people vote depending on the party's leader, and if that party leader happens to be your MP, aren't you already likely to be in an area heavily in favour of them?

 

I think it's also technically possible for a PM to not have to win their election if the party wins but they don't providing they can lead the party. Bit of a grey area as it's never happened, but I don't think there is any legislation that they have to (and they would likely be replaced if it really did, but don't believe it's a necessity).

 

I think this is in line with the above point but...wat?? I didn't fully understand what you're saying(jumbling of the englishes, I think).

[Ashley]

But he was never an elected official as the President in the EU. His presidency ended over a couple of months before that.. but regardless, it is what it is and I don't see it changing.

 

Not sure on timeline, but assume they wouldn't want someone holding office elsewhere anyway and those couple of months could have just been administrative (i.e. getting things in place). But its really not a big deal. And just to be clear that's not me trying to find an argument out of it or anything, but rather my experience of working in the public sector and things taking much longer than planned

 

Seeing as it is a games site... it's like saying the Wii U is able to access the internet, with games like splatoon and mk8 (which even has voice chat.. *cough*) and wondering why people have secondary consoles like the X1 and PS4.. internet is internet, right?

 

I really don't get this comparison. I was just saying that some people in the lead-up to the campaign were saying "EU has unelected officials, thus bad" and it was never clear in what way they are unelected (see previous post), so why now are we in a comparable situation (depending on your definition) do they not seem to mind?

 

I think the main issues with the EU from the UK point of view

 

1) it's a scape goat. I think to an extent it is true... but now the scape goat is (perhaps) gone, it will be interesting to see what politicians do.

 

2) it tried to "progress" too quickly. I think that is responsible for the sentiments that have seen a strong rise in eurosceptism over the last few years in particular. If it wasn't Britain it would have been another nation. Although tbh, I think the UK was about the worst eurosceptic nation for them to lose, in terms of the clout that the EU has lost through this. I am very curious to see what implications this has across the continent, with budgets.. will the net givers in the EU be required to give more? or the receivers get less? or both?

 

But now, all there is to do is our very best, and of course to hope for the best. time to knuckle down! One thing I would say.. the UK public needs to engage a lot more and make the government work FOR them. Hold them accountable, push through reforms and make the UK a better place for the average person. Not saying that wasn't possible in the EU, but just saying in general, people need to be less lethargic and more proactive!

 

Blame something else.

 

UKIP will go onto the wider migrant community and depending what deal we do with the EU still blame them. Hell Farage (and maybe UKIP, it's difficult to tell where one finishes and the other starts) was the worst for buck-passing and finger-pointing.

 

Conversely we were the worst ones to pull out. A lot of companies saw us as an English-speaking gateway to the EU and now we're not and we'll lose that standing in the foreign market. So yeah, works both ways I guess!

 

I think this is in line with the above point but...wat?? I didn't fully understand what you're saying(jumbling of the englishes, I think).

 

There is no official line saying "you have to have been elected as an MP to be a PM". The closest we have is they must "command a majority in Parliament".

 

So in theory it is possible for a Prime Ministerial candidate to lose their constituency in an election but still be Prime Minister if their party wins providing the parliament believes they are capable of commanding a majority (i.e. the party agrees to keep them as PM in spite of not being a MP).

 

But its very unlikely it will happen because if nothing else the party would probably do a new leadership challenge straight away because it wouldn't look good in public. But I think technically it could happen, we just have never been in a position to find out (since it stopped being the job of a House of Lords member anyway).

Edited July 9, 2016 by Ashley

[Ashley]

But he was never an elected official as the President in the EU. His presidency ended over a couple of months before that.. but regardless, it is what it is and I don't see it changing.

 

Not sure on timeline, but assume they wouldn't want someone holding office elsewhere anyway and those couple of months could have just been administrative (i.e. getting things in place). But its really not a big deal. And just to be clear that's not me trying to find an argument out of it or anything, but rather my experience of working in the public sector and things taking much longer than planned

 

Seeing as it is a games site... it's like saying the Wii U is able to access the internet, with games like splatoon and mk8 (which even has voice chat.. *cough*) and wondering why people have secondary consoles like the X1 and PS4.. internet is internet, right?

 

I really don't get this comparison. I was just saying that some people in the lead-up to the campaign were saying "EU has unelected officials, thus bad" and it was never clear in what way they are unelected (see previous post), so why now are we in a comparable situation (depending on your definition) do they not seem to mind?

 

I think the main issues with the EU from the UK point of view

 

1) it's a scape goat. I think to an extent it is true... but now the scape goat is (perhaps) gone, it will be interesting to see what politicians do.

 

2) it tried to "progress" too quickly. I think that is responsible for the sentiments that have seen a strong rise in eurosceptism over the last few years in particular. If it wasn't Britain it would have been another nation. Although tbh, I think the UK was about the worst eurosceptic nation for them to lose, in terms of the clout that the EU has lost through this. I am very curious to see what implications this has across the continent, with budgets.. will the net givers in the EU be required to give more? or the receivers get less? or both?

 

But now, all there is to do is our very best, and of course to hope for the best. time to knuckle down! One thing I would say.. the UK public needs to engage a lot more and make the government work FOR them. Hold them accountable, push through reforms and make the UK a better place for the average person. Not saying that wasn't possible in the EU, but just saying in general, people need to be less lethargic and more proactive!

 

Blame something else.

 

UKIP will go onto the wider migrant community and depending what deal we do with the EU still blame them. Hell Farage (and maybe UKIP, it's difficult to tell where one finishes and the other starts) was the worst for buck-passing and finger-pointing.

 

Conversely we were the worst ones to pull out. A lot of companies saw us as an English-speaking gateway to the EU and now we're not and we'll lose that standing in the foreign market. So yeah, works both ways I guess!

 

I think this is in line with the above point but...wat?? I didn't fully understand what you're saying(jumbling of the englishes, I think).

 

There is no official line saying "you have to have been elected as an MP to be a PM". The closest we have is they must "command a majority in Parliament".

 

So in theory it is possible for a Prime Ministerial candidate to lose their constituency in an election but still be Prime Minister if their party wins providing the parliament believes they are capable of commanding a majority (i.e. the party agrees to keep them as PM in spite of not being a MP).

 

But its very unlikely it will happen because if nothing else the party would probably do a new leadership challenge straight away because it wouldn't look good in public. But I think technically it could happen, we just have never been in a position to find out (since it stopped being the job of a House of Lords member anyway).

Edited July 9, 2016 by Ashley

[Will]

Has that ever happened though? Whilst a technical possibility I just can't see the chances of it happening being very high. I know it's not the right way, but a lot of people vote depending on the party's leader, and if that party leader happens to be your MP, aren't you already likely to be in an area heavily in favour of them?

 

The leader of the party (as well as other key figures) generally stands for a very safe seat for their party, which there is not much chance of them losing. If they do lose then someone of lower importance in a safe seat would give up their seat after the election and call a by-election with the leader of their party as the new candidate.

 

I think very technically the Prime Minister doesn't actually have to be elected, so long as they can command the majority of MP's within the house. In general though something is done to make sure they have a seat.

 

Interesting read on Alec Douglas-Home, he was PM in the 60's and technically for a short period of that had not been elected at all to the position.

[Will]

Has that ever happened though? Whilst a technical possibility I just can't see the chances of it happening being very high. I know it's not the right way, but a lot of people vote depending on the party's leader, and if that party leader happens to be your MP, aren't you already likely to be in an area heavily in favour of them?

 

The leader of the party (as well as other key figures) generally stands for a very safe seat for their party, which there is not much chance of them losing. If they do lose then someone of lower importance in a safe seat would give up their seat after the election and call a by-election with the leader of their party as the new candidate.

 

I think very technically the Prime Minister doesn't actually have to be elected, so long as they can command the majority of MP's within the house. In general though something is done to make sure they have a seat.

 

Interesting read on Alec Douglas-Home, he was PM in the 60's and technically for a short period of that had not been elected at all to the position.

[Ashley]

Kind of like Gordon Brown.

 

Remember when The Sun called him a squatter (and of course provided a crude Photoshop to 'back up')? Wonder if they'll do the same with the next Tory leader...

[Ashley]

Kind of like Gordon Brown.

 

Remember when The Sun called him a squatter (and of course provided a crude Photoshop to 'back up')? Wonder if they'll do the same with the next Tory leader...

[Kav]

Leadsom withdraws.

[Kav]

Leadsom withdraws.

[Ashley]

So now it is clear there was never any plan and all the people responsible have left. In any other circumstances this would be considered null and void and we'd forget it ever happened!

[Ashley]

So now it is clear there was never any plan and all the people responsible have left. In any other circumstances this would be considered null and void and we'd forget it ever happened!

[MoogleViper]

So now Tory MPs just have a yes/no vote on May?

[MoogleViper]

So now Tory MPs just have a yes/no vote on May?

[Rummy]

Leadsom withdraws.

 

Saw rumours of this over the weekend, apparently over the 'hate' she's been receiving.

 

Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn also deals with similar struggles...

 

So now Tory MPs just have a yes/no vote on May?

 

With just one candidate left, I imagine she'll take a yes majority if that is the case.

 

 

I'd like to see Corbyn challenged, end up on the ballot, get resounding support and then I'd like to see another election with him leading the party given what's happened with Cameron etc(don't know the intricacies to know if it's possible, but I'd hope people would call for another election and it might then occur). I'd be very interested to see how much support Labour may have gained following the referendum's general occurrence.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Rummy

[Rummy]

Leadsom withdraws.

 

Saw rumours of this over the weekend, apparently over the 'hate' she's been receiving.

 

Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn also deals with similar struggles...

 

So now Tory MPs just have a yes/no vote on May?

 

With just one candidate left, I imagine she'll take a yes majority if that is the case.

 

 

I'd like to see Corbyn challenged, end up on the ballot, get resounding support and then I'd like to see another election with him leading the party given what's happened with Cameron etc(don't know the intricacies to know if it's possible, but I'd hope people would call for another election and it might then occur). I'd be very interested to see how much support Labour may have gained following the referendum's general occurrence.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Rummy