PM Yingluck has one clear choice: step down

[angsta]

This is so unlike The Nation

I can think of another easier option which would be to not step down.

Rocket science it ain't.

Certainly easier for the government to stay in power, but at the expense of the economy and the foreseeable future of Thailand.

With the corruption, incompetence and lack of governance that is going on there will be nothing to show but a huge debt and a few below spec part completed projects for Thailand once the 2 trillion that this lot want to get their filthy hands on to cover their current debt mess and Shinawatra and their lackey's lavishness.

At the expense of the economy? Ali wah? What are you talking about and don't start quoting me Nation headlines please.

[JRSoul]

This is so unlike The Nation

I can think of another easier option which would be to not step down.

Rocket science it ain't.

Certainly easier for the government to stay in power, but at the expense of the economy and the foreseeable future of Thailand.

With the corruption, incompetence and lack of governance that is going on there will be nothing to show but a huge debt and a few below spec part completed projects for Thailand once the 2 trillion that this lot want to get their filthy hands on to cover their current debt mess and Shinawatra and their lackey's lavishness.

At the expense of the economy? Ali wah? What are you talking about and don't start quoting me Nation headlines please.

Which newspaper/magazine is telling us how well the economy is doing, the mega-profits being made by the rice scheme, and the dire need for a high-speed train to take people to Korat? Perhaps Voice of Thaksin.

[ridkun]

I am confused as to why those that voted for the amendment are being impeached - does this set a precedent that where anything voted for that is later struck down by the CC would have those that voted for it banned?

Opposition just have the right to start the process, but it doesn't mean they would really got impeached. I think only the persons who use the ID card to vote for other MPs are the ones who are really in trouble.

[ridkun]

This is so unlike The Nation

I can think of another easier option which would be to not step down.

Rocket science it ain't.

Same as saying suicide is also a choice. Poor Yingluck.

[animatic]

I am confused as to why those that voted for the amendment are being impeached - does this set a precedent that where anything voted for that is later struck down by the CC would have those that voted for it banned?

Because they are deemed to have tried to alter the constitution undemocratically, and voted for an undemocratic constitution, which in itself is against the constitution, so have violated the contsitution and parliamentary proceedures in doing so. whence the moves to impeach them!

Yes, an elected government votes for this terribly 'undemocratic constitution' of a fully elected senate... what you've just said sounds ridiculous to me, sorry. But I probably needn't keep repeating myself. lol.

Impeaching someone for supporting a bill, is absolutely ridiculous, since it can't be judged to be unconstitutional until AFTER the event. It shouldn't be that supporting a bill lands you in hot water with the constitutional court, and the irony is that of course, murdering someone by shooting someone in the head gets you parliamentary immunity, but voting for something, apparently lands in you in the clink with the constitutional court.

Amazing Thailand.....

Actually the issue is not support for the bill in advance of a ruling,

but with the extra-constitutional way this bill was created, and promulgated.

Several constitutional principles/laws were sundered, these and who was driving

the visibly observable mishandling of the bill, would be the targets of the inquiry.

Edited November 23, 2013 by animatic

[phitsanulokjohn]

It would appear that way,but i doubt big brother would concur.

[Siripon]

Pheua Thai would be hard pressed to find a substitute for Yingluck if she has had enough. There's no one else in the Shinawat clan who would be popular with the working class- Yaowarat is far too unattractive and Thaksin's children are just that- children. Perhaps they'll bring back the colourless brother-in law, Somchai.

There's no one who Thaksin will trust- perhaps it's Chaturon's time, he's currently the Education Minister but his voice is so reedy and weak, he could hardly inspire a vendor.

[Thai at Heart]

I am confused as to why those that voted for the amendment are being impeached - does this set a precedent that where anything voted for that is later struck down by the CC would have those that voted for it banned?

Because they are deemed to have tried to alter the constitution undemocratically, and voted for an undemocratic constitution, which in itself is against the constitution, so have violated the contsitution and parliamentary proceedures in doing so. whence the moves to impeach them!

Yes, an elected government votes for this terribly 'undemocratic constitution' of a fully elected senate... what you've just said sounds ridiculous to me, sorry. But I probably needn't keep repeating myself. lol.

Impeaching someone for supporting a bill, is absolutely ridiculous, since it can't be judged to be unconstitutional until AFTER the event. It shouldn't be that supporting a bill lands you in hot water with the constitutional court, and the irony is that of course, murdering someone by shooting someone in the head gets you parliamentary immunity, but voting for something, apparently lands in you in the clink with the constitutional court.

Amazing Thailand.....

Actually the issue is not support for the bill in advance of a ruling,

but with the extra-constitutional way this bill was created, and promulgated.

Several constitutional principles/laws were sundered, these and who was driving

the visibly observable mishandling of the bill, would be the targets of the inquiry.

So you need to go after all of them? If the bill was mishandled, ironically it should probably be the speaker who gets it.

[Thai at Heart]

I am confused as to why those that voted for the amendment are being impeached - does this set a precedent that where anything voted for that is later struck down by the CC would have those that voted for it banned?

Because they are deemed to have tried to alter the constitution undemocratically, and voted for an undemocratic constitution, which in itself is against the constitution, so have violated the contsitution and parliamentary proceedures in doing so. whence the moves to impeach them!

Yes, an elected government votes for this terribly 'undemocratic constitution' of a fully elected senate... what you've just said sounds ridiculous to me, sorry. But I probably needn't keep repeating myself. lol.

Impeaching someone for supporting a bill, is absolutely ridiculous, since it can't be judged to be unconstitutional until AFTER the event. It shouldn't be that supporting a bill lands you in hot water with the constitutional court, and the irony is that of course, murdering someone by shooting someone in the head gets you parliamentary immunity, but voting for something, apparently lands in you in the clink with the constitutional court.

Amazing Thailand.....

Actually the issue is not support for the bill in advance of a ruling,

but with the extra-constitutional way this bill was created, and promulgated.

Several constitutional principles/laws were sundered, these and who was driving

the visibly observable mishandling of the bill, would be the targets of the inquiry.

So you need to go after all of them? If the bill was mishandled, ironically it should probably be the speaker who gets it.

And as for the proxy votes, string them up.

I like going after them for procedure irregularities. It will teach them to start to learn to respect their position, the institution and the people.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Thai at Heart