Very interesting article about T May. Forgive me if it's been posted before.
I think that the author is proposing that the Murdoch media have been superseded by the Daily Mail in setting the agenda for 'British' and that Theresa May is a product and perpetrator of its agenda.
www.opendemocracy.net/uk/anthony-barnett/daily-mail-takes-power-0
The Daily Mail takes power
Anthony Barnett 5 October 2016
After 25 years in politics Theresa May has no obvious connections to any think tank. She shows no interest in ideas. Asked by Conservative Home in a Quick Quiz session to choose between Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France” or Louise Bagshawe’s “Desire”, she replied, “I wouldn’t read either of them, sorry.” The prime minister who faces arguably the Kingdom’s deepest constitutional predicament since George III was driven from the Cabinet by the loss of the American colonies dismissed out of hand the idea that she might ever turn to the pages of Burke, even though as a student she had chaired a society named after him.
As the country faces an unprecedented concatenation of economic, strategic, diplomatic and constitutional uncertainty, the woman at the helm seems devoid of intellectual resources. The one decision she has definitely taken is to give the go ahead to Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, a boondoggle incapable of justification by any criteria of integrity. The Pharaohs built their own pyramids, Theodoric built his own mausoleum. But these were designed as monuments to generate the admiration of posterity. Surely only an idiot would make their first decision the go-ahead for a colossal radioactive tombstone to her regime.
But Theresa May should not be dismissed as an idiot. There is a striking and potentially formidable coherence to the general direction she has set for her new government, evidenced by the self-confidence of her ministers who remarkably quickly are singing from the same song-sheet. She does seem to have a clear ideology refreshingly different from her predecessors. Where has it come from?
The answer is The Daily Mail. On Sunday in her first speech to her party as its leader, she set out her view of Brexit and announced that she intends to trigger Article 50 to start the UK’s withdrawal from the EU before March. This was a moment of upmost gravity, to recognise and measure the immense divisions that have been opened up within the country, and consider the implications for the entire continent that Britain once helped liberate from fascism. Instead, her tone, brevity and apparent practicality were drawn as if directly from a Daily Mail editorial.
Intelligent comments section, too.
Good questions, niggly! Why not indeed?
I have no idea. If you ever get a chance to interview one of them, please let us know the answers. 
Agree with your post 11:48:51 MaizieD but think some who voted remain might have changed their minds too.
If you did have another vote there should be really strict rules/laws on facts. I cannot believe that people voted leave because of the number on the bus and their belief the money would go into the NHS but they did. I watched one poor women being interviewed, describing how upset she has been to recently find out this will not happen and saying that was why she voted to leave
I'm no backroom lawyer. I just read and discuss things with people who know a great deal more than I do.
Just because the media print something, it doesn't mean it's true. It's not even true if it's printed in huge letters on the side of a bus!
You have no idea what would have happened if Remain had won. Why do you always assume things and try to pass them off as statements of fact?
Why didn't the politicians who are now desperate to reverse the referendum allow it to be held under those particular arrangements? Why on earth didn't they insist on a proper debate at the time instead of shouting now when the horse has bolted?!! As I understand it, the arrangements for the vote went through without a murmur!! Was this on the arrogant assumption that all would be well? If so, how foolish can you be on all fronts without exception!!!! I certainly think that Parliament should vote on the final arrangement agreed with the EU. Obviously all parties have to be comfortable with the final result. I imagine that this will in theory have been agreed before any vote is taken to save the tedious business of another negotiation having to be arrived at.
I think referendums of this kind are possibly not desirable in the age we live in with so many different media outlets to sway people who are perhaps ill informed or biased this way or that. Best left to Parliament to decide on our behalf saving a lot of time, money and heartache.
And had the Remain side been in the majority Nigel Farage vowed he would not let it lie.
Politically it would be suicide for any Government not to implement it
I wonder? I seriously wonder if that would be so.
What would you actually do, roses if it wasn't implemented?
What would any of the Leavers on here do?
It's certainly worth repeating.
You are just repeating yourself roses.
Thank you to all our back room lawers ( you Google things , so we don't need to.)
The Conservative Party promised in their manifesto to 'let the people decide' and this was then backed by most MP's, then this same wording was said/printed over and over.Politically it would be suicide for any Government not to implement it , so it will be done.Because it was legally 'advisory' certain bodies/ groups are trying to use this excuse to....have another referendum/ ignore the wishes of the majority who voted/ try and tangle things up for years with protracted battles.All whilst claiming ( with halos in place) that they are only fighting for Parliamentary democracy.....as if!
Had the Remain side been in the majority, there would be no mention of the word. 'advisory'
with built in fail safes to skew the result
It's not a question of skewing the result, it's a question of making sure that the result is convincing. At the moment, when reduced to small numbers we have 12 people voting Remain to 13 people voting Leave. It's not very convincing for a decision which has extremely wide ranging consequences.
I'd favour a second (properly thought out) Referendum on the 'deal' once it has been negotiated, though that can only happen if A50 is reversible. I know that some Leavers are determined to be OUT and be damned to the consequences but not all think that way. It gives them a chance to say 'Sorry, this isn't what I voted for'
No I don't think we WILL have one referendum on top of another, but to get the right result this is what would probably have to happen! So if this were to be the case, why ask in the first place as it would only prove that what the general public think is a complete irrelevance. Obviously a biding referendum with built in fail safes to skew the result are a better option, although still pretty biased and dceitful!!!!!
I think many people will agree with you niggly about it being "a waste of time, effort and money, not to mention the heartache inflicted on families with differing opinions". The decision was for Parliament to make and many will feel that Parliament has been diminished by the whole thing.
I am surprised you still think we will have one referendum after another - I think we have passed that point, now it is only the detail of leaving that may be disputed as far as I can see and that wasn't voted on.
We could have had a binding referendum but they would have set the level of turnout and the level of majority that had to be reached in order to change the status quo and, as I understand it they would have been likely set much higher than either happened in the advisory one.
We certainly don't have democracy now!
I think it's absolutely right that Parliament should find out for sure what the views of the people are. It has a duty to act on concerns, but it won't please everybody anyway, so it has a duty to find the best solution.
For a definitive answer, ask Cameron - if you can find him!
'Crossed posts' just didn't make sense.
I go on the basis that I hadn't seen the other two when I pressed 'post' Ana as we do not get alerted to posts posted while we were typing on here. Why are you arguing about what constitutes a crossed post? Why did mine take so long - I had to stop and do something else in the middle. Anything else you need to know?
For the life of me, I cannot understand why, if any referendum including this one is only advisory, do/did we have one in the first place if only one answer is the correct one as dictated by parliament? What a waste of time, effort and money, not to mention the heartache inflicted on families with differing opinions. Why ask the public in the first place what they think if you've no intention of abiding by a majority opinion should it be one disapproved of by parliament? What on earth is the point?! Are we to have one referendum after another until we give the correct answer? Democracy? I don't think so. Deceitful? most certainly!
MaizieD's post was at 10.07 - quite a long time between hers and daphnedill's, and then yours 12 minutes later...so no, not crossed posts unless your computer/phone is very slow!
it
Is that a first - three crossed posts 
It will not be altered to make the referendum it legal and binding roses - that would be retrospective and unlikely for any law. Parliament will do what do what a parliament does in a parliamentary democracy and pass their bill. The advisory referendum will have been taken into account because that is the decision Parliament has chosen. Parliament is not there to do as we ask - although it often does - but to represent the whole of society as it sees best. MPs are representatives not delegates.
No, roses, the referendum was advisory and the results still are advisory. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government is not sovereign and cannot trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament of all MPs. That's not a Bill nor an amendment.
If Parliament were to vote against triggering Article 50, there would be nothing in law that Joe Public could do, (apart from make a lot of noise and riot!). It seems highly likely that Parliament will vote to trigger Article 50 - against the personal views of many MPs. It will be for political reasons, because MPs don't want to lose their seats, not because MPs think it will necessarily be in the best interests of the country. I expect to see a number of resignations before the next election.
What Bill are you talking about, roses? The Referendum Bill didn't make any reference to whether it would be advisory or binding. The House of Commons briefing for MPs before the bill was debated states that the Referendum would be advisory.
It's rather ironic that politicians are usually almost automatically stigmatised as liars and not to be believed. Yet despite a campaign characterised by lies on both sides Leavers are clinging to one of the lies as though it were incontrovertible truth...
I used the wrong word.It was a Bill, not an amendment.
I had heard that a Bill would be put to Parliament so that the vote would not be simply advisory.
But you are right anyway, as politically ,article 50 will be triggered.
What amendment? Sorry, you've lost me.
I don't really understand your points. It would be a very slippery slope, if a government can just change the law so that it can get its own way. The whole point of having constitutional law is to curb an autocratic government.
The 'legal side of it' didn't make it advisory. It was advisory! For political reasons, Article 50 is likely to be triggered by Parliament anyway, but that's really not the point. The point is that a precedent could be set for the future. Claiming that the law can just be changed makes a mockery of the law and, for one, do not want to live in a society where the rule books can be ripped up at a whim.
This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion
Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
