Bhokin Panel Recommends Final Reading Of Thai Charter Change Bill

[Hugo6]

Surely with their massive landslide win in the election they should have no problem getting a huge majority in a referendum for the charter that they put forward, regardless what's in it.

whatever you say

i dont believe it for a minute

Do you mean, they didn't win the election in a landslide? That's a first.

pretending to miss the point is just stupid

[Moruya]

right, the court said have a referendum before knowing what you get.

just a tactic from abhisit and co to jam up the works and stop the process

the government always said there would be a referendum to approve the new charter or not approve it

what were the democrats so afraid of

if anyone thinks taht a get out of jail card for mr t would get through a popular referendum, then theyre crazy

but if it did, then it would still be what the thai people voted for

let the good time roll

Surely with their massive landslide win in the election they should have no problem getting a huge majority in a referendum for the charter that they put forward, regardless what's in it.

48% is a "massive landslide"?

Only in Hugoslavia

[nurofiend]

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

"as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum"

well then you remember and understand it incorrectly.

[smedly]

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

"as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum"

well then you remember and understand it incorrectly.

I should have said "first officials to mention referendum" as I actually mentioned it on TV in an earlier thread before the CC ruling

If you have footage to the contrary please provide it as I've now requested three times on this thread or else don't bother mentioning it again

[nurofiend]

it was always intended for public referendum but the democrats seem to have a problem with public votes.

Really? So why did Chalerm ask if people had fallen asleep during the election and state that the government had the mandate to change it unilaterally?

Seemingly you are ignoring everything else said by ptp with regards to it.

and charlem's (who we all know has a tendency to speak before he thinks) comment doesn't prove anything about not having the intention to put it to referendum after the changes were made.

If people really think that they were going to risk changing the whole constitution without putting it to referendum then they are really not thinking straight, regardless of how stupid you may think ptp are, they are not stupid enough not to realise that doing so would be a recipe for a coup and that it would be the outcome if they did such a thing.

and what ptp were trying to push through in parliament before the dems hissy fit and they're surrounding of the house speaker (very dignified), was only to set the ball rolling.

[nurofiend]

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

"as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum"

well then you remember and understand it incorrectly.

I should have said "first officials to mention referendum" as I actually mentioned it on TV in an earlier thread before the CC ruling

If you have footage to the contrary please provide it as I've now requested three times on this thread or else don't bother mentioning it again

i can mention it as many times as i want

ptp, if you count them as 'officials', mentioned it long before the cc got involved after the dems hissy fit.

[nurofiend]

right, the court said have a referendum before knowing what you get.

just a tactic from abhisit and co to jam up the works and stop the process

the government always said there would be a referendum to approve the new charter or not approve it

what were the democrats so afraid of

if anyone thinks taht a get out of jail card for mr t would get through a popular referendum, then theyre crazy

but if it did, then it would still be what the thai people voted for

let the good time roll

Surely with their massive landslide win in the election they should have no problem getting a huge majority in a referendum for the charter that they put forward, regardless what's in it.

that was only a suggestion by the cc not a ruling, i don't believe it's in the constitution to have a referendum just to allow a constitution rewrite.

rewriting it and then putting it to a referendum makes sense to any logical human being.

putting it for referendum before people have any idea of what the changes will be doesn't make sense.

"regardless what's in it"

do you realise how silly that sounds?