No, I think you guess wrong.Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
It really doesn't matter how you frame it if you are part of a collective, whether a political party, FRA Committee or Board of Directors.
If a board decide 6:2 to go and buy a company, you wouldn't see the two briefing to the press about what a bad idea it was, or going to the company subject of a takeover offering them advise on how to fend off the bid.
They would get on board or resign.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
Very important point WP. Thinking about it, its all Camerons fault again. He allowed MP's to vote with their conscience not to a party line at the referendum...maybe they have just extended that thought process??
Simon Blease
Monmouth
I don't like it when people twist my words to different situations (but I realise I seem to be doing it a lot on this thread - sorry), but...
Are you saying the conservative MPs who disagreed with the withdrawal agreement should have got on board or resigned? There was a clear majority within their party to support the WA. But they didn't get on board or resign, they went and briefed the press on what a bad idea it was.
Again, I think this comes down to perspective. They thought they were right, and in that instance they stood their ground and fought and won.
You are missing the point Noel, it is only people that he disagrees with that should resign.
All those people that killed the withdrawal agreement were perfectly correct.
You make a good point Noel. However the Tory MP's who voted against the withdrawal agreement could at least say they were honouring the commitments made in their 2017 manifesto. The withdrawal agreement didn't do that.
You can't say the same for the Tory rebels this time. They stood on a manifesto commitment to leave the Single Market and Customs Union and that the UK would leave with no-deal if we couldn't get a good deal. So why stand on that ticket if they had no intention of honouring it? Not only that but they voted in favour of opposition legislation designed to humiliate their leader and against a policy that he had only recently been elected overwhelmingly on by Tory MP's and members.
Personally I think that's a different order of things. Look at it this way. Let's suppose Johnson wins a majority in the general election that is surely coming. What is the point of having them as Tory MP's if they yet again vote against and thwart Johnson's policy even after he has a mandate from the public for it? It might seem tough but I think they had to go.
What is the point of MPs then? if they have to resign if they disagree with goverment policy?
A few extremist in the cabinate could do whatever they wanted and nobody could stop them. Tony Blair was almost like that with such a super majority he could afford to ignore the few people that disagreed with him, and we all know where that led us.
But this was the central plank of the Government's policy, endorsed by an overwhelming majority of Tory MP's and members only a couple of months ago. They've sided with the opposition to allow the legislature to take control from the Executive and completely scupper the Government's main policy. I think this goes way beyond an ordinary rebellion.
If their central plank was to start WW III would you sympathise with Tory MPs who voted against it?
This is incredible, you just cannot see that you have one rule for people you agree with and another for people you disagree with.
Well that's just plain daft. It isn't is it?
You made the analogy with the Tony Blair early which isn't correct because Blair had no mandate to go to war in Iraq. The Government does have a mandate to leave the EU. The real outrage is that it has been thwarted at every turn by this rotten parliament. That's what should really be upsetting you DrPB. But it doesn't does it? Why? Because you agree with them.
Again, this is down to opinion. The WA did (and still does) allow the UK to leave the EU, it's just that those MPs didn't agree with aspects of it. You could say they were at the time thwarting the will of the people by voting against it - although I realise this is a stretch as they wanted a more Brexit-y Brexit than was on offer as part of the WA.
And WP, I am aware the WA is only the first step - following by the non-binding political declaration.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote