How many ignorant stereotypes can you fall for and squeeze into one post?
It comes as no surprise AT ALL that his much-vaunted cleverness is not of the boringly conventional sort which results in, and is evidenced by, "postgrad degrees". Well, of course it isn't.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
haha
You: "Show me where he said it" WG: here you go You: well he didn't say it this morning so it doesn't count
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
haha
You: "Show me where he said it" WG: here you go You: well he didn't say it this morning so it doesn't count
LOL
Yes he said there could be a second referendum or a new general election years ago and since then there has been a general election. WG was implying he was calling for it now which he isn't political reality has moved on since June 2016, it is just WG is slow to catch up.
It is depressing that Mr Palmer thinks that an agenda driven by identity politics is going to take us anywhere worthwhile or desirable. No wonder Labour is in trouble with many of its traditional supporters.
+1, I'm afraid.
I presume by using the awful '+1' meme you are claiming to oppose identity politics?
If so, you are a raging hypocrite.
You are on here frequently pushing the ultimate identity-political programme – Brexit – the tyranny of a tiny majority of provincial nationalists over metropolitan liberals. With your hectoring, paleoconservative affected fogeyish nostalgia, you are the personification of the patronising, moralising, traditionalist rightwing: the embodiment of village green identity politics.
I'm a metropolitan liberal Brexiteer.
By portraying Brexit as the preserve of provincials you are pushing a fallacious and identity based meme.
Even in metropolitan areas a significant minority backed Brexit.
The proletariat are quite resistant to parsing in simplistic ways. 43% of graduates voted for Brexit - a minority, but a reasonably substantial one. The same proportion of AB voters opted for Leave.
Even on here, there are Tories and Tories - HYUFD and TSE don't appear to have much in common. I'm a TINO, partly through ennui and disillusionment, partly because I am very much not a Unionist. An independent Scotland and a united Ireland seem like positives to me (though of course your mileage may vary).
Indeed I'm in that 43%. In fact I'm not just a graduate but have a postgraduate degree too. Which makes the claim that only the uneducated voted for Brexit ring rather hollow. The reality is far more complex than that
Your Mummy must be very proud of you!
It has been amply proven that the less well educated tended to fall for the Brexit propaganda, and why shouldn't they, it appeals to people's most base of instincts; the dislike or mistrust of the foreigner, the precursor to racism. More intelligent people (not always necessarily with postgrad degrees) normally curb such instincts as they recognise the benefits of diversity and the limitations of prejudice. That said, I am sure not all people who voted Leave did it for prejudiced reasons, though I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority did. Many are not ashamed .
How many ignorant stereotypes can you fall for and squeeze into one post?
The notion that how one voted in this Referendum gives any indication of one's moral worth is for the birds.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
And if Chequers goes ahead without a referendum then that'd follow in the footsteps of Lisbon and everything else that did so.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
haha
You: "Show me where he said it" WG: here you go You: well he didn't say it this morning so it doesn't count
LOL
Yes he said there could be a second referendum or a new general election years ago and since then there has been a general election. WG was implying he was calling for it now which he isn't political reality has moved on since June 2016, it is just WG is slow to catch up.
I don't think I implied that. He's Foreign Secretary so he could hardly be advocating something against government policy in public. What he and May talk about behind closed doors is another matter...
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
If you change "elected" to "properly and honestly elected", that describes our present Conservative Government to a T. We definitely need to change the system, and take back control over these Tory politicians.
They were properly and honestly elected winning the most votes by some margin across the country. Just because you lost the election doesn't mean you need to change the system, just appeal for more votes next time.
You do realise he has an answer for this and you do realise you will only imagine him wearing a tinfoil hat thereafter, don't you?
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
And if Chequers goes ahead without a referendum then that'd follow in the footsteps of Lisbon and everything else that did so.
"If the choice is an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe or a Labour party which is broadly in line with the instinctive culture of the times, many people will go with the latter even if they’re not really convinced of the economic case."
Wouldn't many people go with an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe over the current Labour party's cultural outlook regardless of the economic case?
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
If you change "elected" to "properly and honestly elected", that describes our present Conservative Government to a T. We definitely need to change the system, and take back control over these Tory politicians.
They were properly and honestly elected winning the most votes by some margin across the country. Just because you lost the election doesn't mean you need to change the system, just appeal for more votes next time.
Oh dear, Mr Thompson, you have two degrees and you make that simple mistake. "Winning most votes"... No they didn`t! They won more than any other single party, but definitely not "most votes". They have no mandate to do anything, far less to destroy the country.
And "properly and honestly"....? Certainly not. The Tories were let off because there was not sufficient proof to convict them. ie they had good, cunning and well-paid lawyers.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
I could post social research results which tend to support the idea that the UK is a tolerant, relaxed and liberal country, but that would just spoil things for our bien pensant, more-disappointed-than-angry Remainers who are just so, so horrified that seemingly decent folk are in fact raging xenophobes.
We're unexceptional members of the Western European democracies. Less tolerant than the Scandis. More tolerant than the Iberians. About the same as Germany, Spain and Ireland. Oh, the horror.
Self-assessment merely tells us what respondents think it is respectable to say. One should judge by actions, not words.
Britain had a referendum two years ago which one side fought with xenophobic lies. It won.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
If the withdrawal agreement gets voted down and Jeremy Corbyn tries to force a General Election in which he promises a second referendum, what would you think?
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
And if Chequers goes ahead without a referendum then that'd follow in the footsteps of Lisbon and everything else that did so.
I'm in the 'two wrongs don't make a right' camp here. As I've said before, no one can argue that people haven't had the opportunity to beat the EUref result with a variety of sticks, both legal and constituional. It makes me proud that our institutions have worked so well.
If the government decides to have a second referendum, that's fine. A General Election would also be acceptable. There would be all manner of ramifications following any such decision (and, let's be clear, I'm not talking about civil unrest or any of that nonsense), but we elect governments to govern.
I think leaving the EU is the right thing to do, but I value our system of government even more.
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
If the withdrawal agreement gets voted down and Jeremy Corbyn tries to force a General Election in which he promises a second referendum, what would you think?
That if he wins an election he should hold the referendum.
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
If you change "elected" to "properly and honestly elected", that describes our present Conservative Government to a T. We definitely need to change the system, and take back control over these Tory politicians.
They were properly and honestly elected winning the most votes by some margin across the country. Just because you lost the election doesn't mean you need to change the system, just appeal for more votes next time.
Oh dear, Mr Thompson, you have two degrees and you make that simple mistake. "Winning most votes"... No they didn`t! They won more than any other single party, but definitely not "most votes". They have no mandate to do anything, far less to destroy the country.
And "properly and honestly"....? Certainly not. The Tories were let off because there was not sufficient proof to convict them. ie they had good, cunning and well-paid lawyers.
Philip-two-degrees-Thompson has a very nice ring to it. Rather like Arthur-two-sheds-Jackson
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
If the withdrawal agreement gets voted down and Jeremy Corbyn tries to force a General Election in which he promises a second referendum, what would you think?
That if he wins an election he should hold the referendum.
Would you be happy to go into a general election in those circumstances and do you think the Conservative policy should be to refuse a referendum?
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
haha
You: "Show me where he said it" WG: here you go You: well he didn't say it this morning so it doesn't count
LOL
Yes he said there could be a second referendum or a new general election years ago and since then there has been a general election. WG was implying he was calling for it now which he isn't political reality has moved on since June 2016, it is just WG is slow to catch up.
I don't think I implied that. He's Foreign Secretary so he could hardly be advocating something against government policy in public. What he and May talk about behind closed doors is another matter...
You have of course spoken to him to check that he hasn't changed his views?
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
Ah - you do realise she wasn't talking about UK laws, right?
From your own link: "We contacted Ms Reding's press office to find out what source she was basing this on. In fact, the percentage was actually referring to something entirely different — where the European Parliament (consisting of elected representatives for each EU country) has an equal say to the European Council (made up of the governments of all EU countries) on EU laws, not UK laws."
Sort of a crucial bit, really...
The after-the-fact comments from her office sound awfully like Jeremy Corbyn’s office denying he placed a wreath on the grave of a terrorist. Rather like Corbyn, when speaking to a friendly audience she had no problem with boasting about how much legislation originates with the EU.
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
If you change "elected" to "properly and honestly elected", that describes our present Conservative Government to a T. We definitely need to change the system, and take back control over these Tory politicians.
They were properly and honestly elected winning the most votes by some margin across the country. Just because you lost the election doesn't mean you need to change the system, just appeal for more votes next time.
Oh dear, Mr Thompson, you have two degrees and you make that simple mistake. "Winning most votes"... No they didn`t! They won more than any other single party, but definitely not "most votes". They have no mandate to do anything, far less to destroy the country.
And "properly and honestly"....? Certainly not. The Tories were let off because there was not sufficient proof to convict them. ie they had good, cunning and well-paid lawyers.
Or, more likely, the law was on the side of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
No he didn't. We the British people had a General Election last year that resulted in May being PM. Had votes gone another way then Corbyn would have become PM and the path of governance would change dramatically.
We Brits didn't choose Juncker or his government. Nor the path we are taking.
The notion that how one voted in this Referendum gives any indication of one's moral worth is for the birds.
Not entirely. It was a central plank of the Leave campaign to reduce the number of foreigners eligible to come here.
Now, you might say that it wasn't the number, it was the control, blah, blah, but we all know it was the number.
You might also say that it is not a moral position to not want foreigners in your country.
But actually, it is also possible to say not wanting foreigners in your country is a moral position and hence it can give an indication of one's moral worth.
On topic, what we are seeing is fragmentation as different niche views can cluster more effectively. No one much engages with people they disagree with because it’s a lot of effort for little reward. So a whole set of house views spring up, none of which are challenged effectively.
The public have lost interest in everyday competence. Given that first the right and now the left have abandoned it, I’m coming to the view that the country needs an extended period of dogma-driven incompetence before the virtues of everyday competence can be reappreciated.
Looked on in this light, the frenzied incompetence of Brexit might make Britain early starters on this process. Or an awful warning to others.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
Which means you, Mr Two-Degrees, are frit. I think referenda are an in-British construct, which is why I am ambivalent about another. Plus the fact that it has already made Britain look foolish and intolerant in the eyes of the world, and my patriotic side doesn't want us becoming an even bigger laughing stock than leavers already have.
On topic, what we are seeing is fragmentation as different niche views can cluster more effectively. No one much engages with people they disagree with because it’s a lot of effort for little reward. So a whole set of house views spring up, none of which are challenged effectively.
The public have lost interest in everyday competence. Given that first the right and now the left have abandoned it, I’m coming to the view that the country needs an extended period of dogma-driven incompetence before the virtues of everyday competence can be reappreciated.
Looked on in this light, the frenzied incompetence of Brexit might make Britain early starters on this process. Or an awful warning to others.
Greece, Venezuela and above all Russia (has Russia ever had a vaguely competent government?) beat us to it, but they don't seem to be acting as warnings to others.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
The political reality is that Brexit was received over 17m votes on over 70% turnout.
I understand your seemingly all-consuming pain at the result but you really need to get over it and move on to something more productive in your life.
Like perhaps working towards a GE victory for a party with a mandate to rejoin...now that would be a cause that any decent person could take pride in.
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
If you change "elected" to "properly and honestly elected", that describes our present Conservative Government to a T. We definitely need to change the system, and take back control over these Tory politicians.
They were properly and honestly elected winning the most votes by some margin across the country. Just because you lost the election doesn't mean you need to change the system, just appeal for more votes next time.
Oh dear, Mr Thompson, you have two degrees and you make that simple mistake. "Winning most votes"... No they didn`t! They won more than any other single party, but definitely not "most votes". They have no mandate to do anything, far less to destroy the country.
And "properly and honestly"....? Certainly not. The Tories were let off because there was not sufficient proof to convict them. ie they had good, cunning and well-paid lawyers.
Oh dear Mr Clipp you can't read what I wrote apparently. I didn't say they "winning most votes" I said "winning the most votes". The most is the superlative of many and means more than any other ... ie winning the most votes is the same as saying more than any other party.
Hence why in your quotation you dropped the word the. Because dropping a word out of my sentence changes its meaning. The Tories won the most votes that is a fact.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
You seriously think Junker is a civil servant? Who is his boss then?
The obvious differentiator is that civil servants don’t make public statements or meet foreign leaders in public.
Anna has 7 apples. Bryony has 4 apples. Cathy has 5 apples.
Who has the most apples? Don't all shout at once.
If Bryony gives all her apples to Cathy, then Cathy does. I suspect you must be a Tory, Mr Price. Anybody who has a bit more than everybody else gets a bit above himself (in your example, herself) and thinks she has a right to boss everybody else around.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
No he didn't. We the British people had a General Election last year that resulted in May being PM. Had votes gone another way then Corbyn would have become PM and the path of governance would change dramatically.
We Brits didn't choose Juncker or his government. Nor the path we are taking.
The problem with this kind of identity politics is that where you draw your circle of who "we" are is somewhat arbitrary and not everyone sees it in such binary terms. Even if you regret that this is so, it doesn't make much sense to deny it.
"If the choice is an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe or a Labour party which is broadly in line with the instinctive culture of the times, many people will go with the latter even if they’re not really convinced of the economic case."
Wouldn't many people go with an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe over the current Labour party's cultural outlook regardless of the economic case?
It is a bizarre omission to mention the Tory party's very real anti-Muslim fringe when indulging the Labour leadership's very real anti-Semitism.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
You seriously think Junker is a civil servant? Who is his boss then?
The obvious differentiator is that civil servants don’t make public statements or meet foreign leaders in public.
Juncker wants to be PM of Europe, and believes he already is. I can't agree with those who describe him as a civil servant, that's Selmayr's role.
Insofar as he is a servant, I don't think there's anything civil about the drunken old fool.
Anna has 7 apples. Bryony has 4 apples. Cathy has 5 apples.
Who has the most apples? Don't all shout at once.
If Bryony gives all her apples to Cathy, then Cathy does. I suspect you must be a Tory, Mr Price. Anybody who has a bit more than everybody else gets a bit above himself (in your example, herself) and thinks she has a right to boss everybody else around.
It was a simple question. The answer is Anna. This is because 7>4, and 7>5.
Isn't there a massive difference between "not wanting foreigners in your the country", and "not wanting foreigners to be able to come into your country and without any contribution to your country, be able to settle immediately and claim the same benefits as if they had lived here all their lives, in the process causing much homelessness among native single men"?
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
If the withdrawal agreement gets voted down and Jeremy Corbyn tries to force a General Election in which he promises a second referendum, what would you think?
That if he wins an election he should hold the referendum.
Would you be happy to go into a general election in those circumstances and do you think the Conservative policy should be to refuse a referendum?
I honestly don't know right now as it is a hypothetical.
It depends upon how and why it gets voted down. If it gets voted down in the Lords then no I would want the Commons to stand its ground. If it gets voted down in the Commons then something would need to change.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
Which means you, Mr Two-Degrees, are frit. I think referenda are an in-British construct, which is why I am ambivalent about another. Plus the fact that it has already made Britain look foolish and intolerant in the eyes of the world, and my patriotic side doesn't want us becoming an even bigger laughing stock than leavers already have.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
No he didn't. We the British people had a General Election last year that resulted in May being PM. Had votes gone another way then Corbyn would have become PM and the path of governance would change dramatically.
We Brits didn't choose Juncker or his government. Nor the path we are taking.
Was your postgraduate degree thesis entitled " The effective use of jingoistic xenophobic language by tabloid newspapers and its ability to influence hatred of supra national entities"
If so you might want to apply for a job at the Whitehouse
You seriously think Junker is a civil servant? Who is his boss then? The obvious differentiator is that civil servants don’t make public statements or meet foreign leaders in public.
His boss is Mrs May - along with one or two other heads of government. She clearly isn`t doing a very good job of it, is she?
But perhaps Mr Junker is obeying the instructions he has received from all the others..... What a thing is this democracy!
"If the choice is an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe or a Labour party which is broadly in line with the instinctive culture of the times, many people will go with the latter even if they’re not really convinced of the economic case."
Wouldn't many people go with an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe over the current Labour party's cultural outlook regardless of the economic case?
It is a bizarre omission to mention the Tory party's very real anti-Muslim fringe when indulging the Labour leadership's very real anti-Semitism.
Anna has 7 apples. Bryony has 4 apples. Cathy has 5 apples.
Who has the most apples? Don't all shout at once.
If Bryony gives all her apples to Cathy, then Cathy does. I suspect you must be a Tory, Mr Price. Anybody who has a bit more than everybody else gets a bit above himself (in your example, herself) and thinks she has a right to boss everybody else around.
Wrong. Bryony has the fewest apples so the Labour Party champions her and "is on her side". She subsequently works hard and earns another 10 apples meaning she has 14 while the others don't add any.
The Labour Party now hates her as a running dog capitalist pawn of the military-industrial complex.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
No he didn't. We the British people had a General Election last year that resulted in May being PM. Had votes gone another way then Corbyn would have become PM and the path of governance would change dramatically.
We Brits didn't choose Juncker or his government. Nor the path we are taking.
Was your postgraduate degree thesis entitled " The effective use of jingoistic xenophobic language by tabloid newspapers and its ability to influence hatred of supra national entities"
If so you might want to apply for a job at the Whitehouse
Whatever he took his degree in, he certainly lacks your overweening conceit.
"If the choice is an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe or a Labour party which is broadly in line with the instinctive culture of the times, many people will go with the latter even if they’re not really convinced of the economic case."
Wouldn't many people go with an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe over the current Labour party's cultural outlook regardless of the economic case?
It is a bizarre omission to mention the Tory party's very real anti-Muslim fringe when indulging the Labour leadership's very real anti-Semitism.
Yes, I said in another post that the exaggeration of the opposing sides "malice" while accepting ones own view as morally correct is one of the biggest problems in society/politics. It would be better for all if people accepted their opponents honesty instead of attacking their weakest argument.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
You seriously think Junker is a civil servant? Who is his boss then?
The obvious differentiator is that civil servants don’t make public statements or meet foreign leaders in public.
Juncker wants to be PM of Europe, and believes he already is. I can't agree with those who describe him as a civil servant, that's Selmayr's role.
Insofar as he is a servant, I don't think there's anything civil about the drunken old fool.
His term ends in Nov '19. He's an easy hate figure, but he's merely over-promoted rather than malevolent.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no longer have aspirations to appeal to any particular constituency. Prejudice and xenophobia repulse me, and while I do recognise the fact that there are many fundamentally decent people who voted Leave (including members of my own family and friends), I cannot feel anything less than disappointment that said decent people didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
No he didn't. We the British people had a General Election last year that resulted in May being PM. Had votes gone another way then Corbyn would have become PM and the path of governance would change dramatically.
We Brits didn't choose Juncker or his government. Nor the path we are taking.
Was your postgraduate degree thesis entitled " The effective use of jingoistic xenophobic language by tabloid newspapers and its ability to influence hatred of supra national entities"
If so you might want to apply for a job at the Whitehouse
Whatever he took his degree in, he certainly lacks your overweening conceit.
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no ople didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
No he didn't. We the British people had a General Election last year that resulted in May being PM. Had votes gone another way then Corbyn would have become PM and the path of governance would change dramatically.
We Brits didn't choose Juncker or his government. Nor the path we are taking.
Was your postgraduate degree thesis entitled " The effective use of jingoistic xenophobic language by tabloid newspapers and its ability to influence hatred of supra national entities"
If so you might want to apply for a job at the Whitehouse
Whatever he took his degree in, he certainly lacks your overweening conceit.
I am not sure he does Mr T, though I think most who come on here enjoy the cut and thrust of winding up the other side. If that is conceit, then mea culpa
The notion that how one voted in this Referendum gives any indication of one's moral worth is for the birds.
Not entirely. It was a central plank of the Leave campaign to reduce the number of foreigners eligible to come here.
Now, you might say that it wasn't the number, it was the control, blah, blah, but we all know it was the number.
You might also say that it is not a moral position to not want foreigners in your country.
But actually, it is also possible to say not wanting foreigners in your country is a moral position and hence it can give an indication of one's moral worth.
There is a great difference between your first contention (numbers of immigrants should be restricted further) and the second (foreigners should not be in the country). You’re too intelligent to make an elision like that by accident.
Are you arguing that it is immoral to have a stance on immigration that recognises that the relative volume changes the overall impact on society?
Mr. Foremain, Cameron's Little Englander comments and Clinton's basket of deplorables suggests insulting the electorate isn't the most persuasive technique available.
I would agree Mr. Dancer, but I no ople didn't realise that voting for Brexit sent a very clear message to the world that Britain is not a tolerant country
Britain is not tolerant of a situation whereby those who make the majority of laws are unelected, unaccountable, unsackable and often seek to harm Britain’s interest while continually claiming more powers for themselves.
I think that's considerably overstating the case, to put it mildly.
So how can we get rid of Mr Junker? One of the fundamentals of democracy is that those in charge remain servants of the people rather than masters of them. The EU are firmly in the latter category.
The argument is that 'tis the EC who nominate (say) Juncker via QMV, and the EP who either confirm or veto his appointment. The EC are democratically elected, as are MEPs.
Juncker is a public servant, like (say) Olly Robbins, and you didn't get to elect Robbins either.
The point is that he isn’t a public servant, he’s a politician that no-one voted for. The Commission he leads is responsible for initiating all EU legislation, much as our government does at home.
You lost this minor argument, move on.
No he didn't. We the British people had a General Election last year that resulted in May being PM. Had votes gone another way then Corbyn would have become PM and the path of governance would change dramatically.
We Brits didn't choose Juncker or his government. Nor the path we are taking.
Was your postgraduate degree thesis entitled " The effective use of jingoistic xenophobic language by tabloid newspapers and its ability to influence hatred of supra national entities"
If so you might want to apply for a job at the Whitehouse
Whatever he took his degree in, he certainly lacks your overweening conceit.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
Which means you, Mr Two-Degrees, are frit. I think referenda are an in-British construct, which is why I am ambivalent about another. Plus the fact that it has already made Britain look foolish and intolerant in the eyes of the world, and my patriotic side doesn't want us becoming an even bigger laughing stock than leavers already have.
Anna has 7 apples. Bryony has 4 apples. Cathy has 5 apples. Who has the most apples? Don't all shout at once.
If Bryony gives all her apples to Cathy, then Cathy does. I suspect you must be a Tory, Mr Price. Anybody who has a bit more than everybody else gets a bit above himself (in your example, herself) and thinks she has a right to boss everybody else around.
Wrong. Bryony has the fewest apples so the Labour Party champions her and "is on her side". She subsequently works hard and earns another 10 apples meaning she has 14 while the others don't add any. The Labour Party now hates her as a running dog capitalist pawn of the military-industrial complex.
The original example was about "having apples" (ie votes), not about working hard and becoming rich. Not that there is much of a relationship in our society between working hard and becoming rich anyway.
No idea how the Labour Party might or might not react - nothing to do with me - and I fail to see the relevance of this particular comment of yours, Mr Topping.
The original point from the Tory side was that is somebody gets a relative majority, like Mrs May last year, then she has a right to impose her will on absolutely everybody. Not even the Conservative MPs will go along with that one.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
Which means you, Mr Two-Degrees, are frit. I think referenda are an in-British construct, which is why I am ambivalent about another. Plus the fact that it has already made Britain look foolish and intolerant in the eyes of the world, and my patriotic side doesn't want us becoming an even bigger laughing stock than leavers already have.
We joined on a referendum ,any thoughts on that ?
No we didn't. Look it up
So if we didn't join the common market in 75 (with a referendum)we would be in the EU now ?
Or, in 20 years time people will look back and kids will say 'Daddy is it true that one day this country was taken on a path that led to extreme prejudice by a man who was bitter about being rejected by the Conservative Party?'"
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
Which means you, Mr Two-Degrees, are frit. I think referenda are an in-British construct, which is why I am ambivalent about another. Plus the fact that it has already made Britain look foolish and intolerant in the eyes of the world, and my patriotic side doesn't want us becoming an even bigger laughing stock than leavers already have.
We joined on a referendum ,any thoughts on that ?
No we didn't. Look it up
So if we didn't join the common market in 75 we would be in the EU now ?
The point being we didn't join the Common Market in 1975. We joined in 1973 and the referendum was held ex post facto.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
Which means you, Mr Two-Degrees, are frit. I think referenda are an in-British construct, which is why I am ambivalent about another. Plus the fact that it has already made Britain look foolish and intolerant in the eyes of the world, and my patriotic side doesn't want us becoming an even bigger laughing stock than leavers already have.
We joined on a referendum ,any thoughts on that ?
No we didn't. Look it up
So if we didn't join the common market in 75 (with a referendum)we would be in the EU now ?
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
Which means you, Mr Two-Degrees, are frit. I think referenda are an in-British construct, which is why I am ambivalent about another. Plus the fact that it has already made Britain look foolish and intolerant in the eyes of the world, and my patriotic side doesn't want us becoming an even bigger laughing stock than leavers already have.
We joined on a referendum ,any thoughts on that ?
No we didn't. Look it up
So if we didn't join the common market in 75 (with a referendum)we would be in the EU now ?
Anna has 7 apples. Bryony has 4 apples. Cathy has 5 apples. Who has the most apples? Don't all shout at once.
I think the trouble here is that the word "most" can be used in different ways that are equally correct. At the 2017 General Election the Conservatives won the most seats but didn't win most of the seats. I think that works?
Relatively, Toby, but not absolutely. And yet Mrs May`s Tory government is carrying on as though it had won an absolute majority. This is something that many of us object to.
The notion that how one voted in this Referendum gives any indication of one's moral worth is for the birds.
Not entirely. It was a central plank of the Leave campaign to reduce the number of foreigners eligible to come here.
Now, you might say that it wasn't the number, it was the control, blah, blah, but we all know it was the number.
You might also say that it is not a moral position to not want foreigners in your country.
But actually, it is also possible to say not wanting foreigners in your country is a moral position and hence it can give an indication of one's moral worth.
There is a great difference between your first contention (numbers of immigrants should be restricted further) and the second (foreigners should not be in the country). You’re too intelligent to make an elision like that by accident.
Are you arguing that it is immoral to have a stance on immigration that recognises that the relative volume changes the overall impact on society?
The overall impact of immigration on society is very limited. Don't make me roll out that Daily Mash article yet again.
And for all the dancing on the head of the pin, it is a convenient excuse to say that it was the control not the numbers. The Turkey scares were all about the numbers. And I am happy to add the words "any more" in my second statement.
The FTSE100 is an almost totally useless index. I generally avoid FTSE100 trackers altogether, because the index serves no investment purpose. For a start it's not well diversified, with ten companies accounting for 40% of the total, and, even worse, it's heavily skewed to a small number of sectors (oil, minerals, banks). It doesn't represent the UK economy, with 70% of revenues coming from abroad, so it's not useful if you're trying to match assets against your (UK) sterling liabilities. It's essentially just a skewed jumble of international stocks which happen to be listed in the UK. Why would anyone want to track that?
Having said that, I've just invested in a FTSE100 tracker for a relative. Why? Because I think that there's a curious anomaly at the moment. Because of concerns over Brexit, the UK-listed market is unfashionable. The FTSE100 P/E ratio is around 12.8, compared with 16.7 for the CAC40, 14.4 for the Dax 30, and 20.6 for the S&P 500.
If Brexit goes well, confidence in the UK market will return. That will, I hope, lead to a re-rating. Conversely, if Brexit goes badly, sterling will tank - leading to an immediate increase in FTSE100 sterling-denominated earnings. So it's a natural hedge, IMO.
(This is not investment advice, DYOR etc).
Isn't the low PE ratio the consequence of the FTSE100 having lots of low PE sectors
Anyway, away from all this boring rubbish about BRexit in other news, Jos Buttler has got his highest Test score.
If he does a Rob Key, we might at least not lose too disastrously.
Buttler and Stokes have done a great job today, shame about the four “batsmen” above them.
The one I always remember was Monty Panasar at #11 staying in for a whole session for a draw in the 2009 Ashes series.
I’ve got £500 on India at 1/10, am not too worried about it yet.
Wasn't he batting with Anderson?
The rabbit and the ferret (something you send in after a rabbit).
It's a shame they don't host Tests in Cardiff any more. I think every match they served up was an absolute nail-biting classic.
Yes, Monty and Anderson.
The one thing England have learned in the last decade, is that it’s worth spending time teaching the bowlers which way up to hold a bat. We’ve more batting depth in the side now than any other country.
Mr Johnno, I think it possibly would have been better had we not joined in 1973, though economists may disagree as the EU and its antecedents significantly contributed to the recovery of Britain's economy through easing trade. It is often forgotten by leave obsessed Tories (and many Europeans) that it was Mrs T (god bless her) that was one of the principle architects of the single market. This also hugely enabled our economic successes as we had a much more liberal business setting than most of our European partners. They copied many of Mrs T's reforms. The EU as it stands today is much more a construct of Thatcherism than it is of socialism. That is the fundamental reason for Corbyn's eurosceptism, that along with the EU and Human Rights Act protections for property rights. Brexit provides the perfect conditions for the most damaging type of loony-left government, and the Tory right is responsible.
Statesmanlike speech about international unity and economic growth.
All very proper - and boring. Not going to get much news coverage.
Mr Hunt is proper and boring, and probably exactly what the country needs
And he was one of the very first to say we needed a second referendum on the Brexit deal. Political reality has just been slow to catch up with political logic.
People should have their say on the terms of the UK's exit deal with the EU, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Mr Hunt, who said he was "seriously considering" a bid for the Conservative leadership, said this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
2 years ago says after the referendum and before the leadership contest. He's not saying it now and I don't think that counts towards political reality catching up with anything.
Political reality is that there isn't a mandate for any given form of Brexit, and polling for Chequers is in the teens.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for another referendum (though there is clearly merit in offering more than the heavily misrepresented in/out), it is amusing how the frothers get really lathered at the suggestion. Surely if they are so confident of the "will-o-the-people you know" then they should welcome one every year
I'm quite happy to have another. As soon as a party pledging one wins a general election.
Which means you, Mr Two-Degrees, are frit. I think referenda are an in-British construct, which is why I am ambivalent about another. Plus the fact that it has already made Britain look foolish and intolerant in the eyes of the world, and my patriotic side doesn't want us becoming an even bigger laughing stock than leavers already have.
We joined on a referendum ,any thoughts on that ?
No we didn't. Look it up
So if we didn't join the common market in 75 (with a referendum)we would be in the EU now ?
we joined in 1973
And backed up with a referendum,so you think no need for the 75 vote then ?
For some reason India are now out to 1.16 to win this match, having been 1.01 earlier in the day. That price will crash when the next wicket comes and we’re two overs from the new ball.
Relatively, Toby, but not absolutely. And yet Mrs May`s Tory government is carrying on as though it had won an absolute majority. This is something that many of us object to.
I'm a Lib Dem myself so no fan of this government.
Mr Johnno, There was no vote before 1975, Ted Heath's Conservative Government took us into the community mandated (I think ) by their manifesto. I was only 7 years old then so I don't remember fully! The 1975 vote was held by the Labour Government of the time to confirm continuing membership of what was then called EEC. It could be argued that this too, like the recent one was party political management, this time by Labour. As I say, look it up
Of course, Vlad didn't in anyway influence the Brexit referendum though. He is a great fan of Britain's membership of the European Union!
And to think, people who opposed the insanity of Brexit have been called traitors. At least we haven't been supporting the foreign policy agenda of a foreign despot who desperately wants to see us in decline.
For some reason India are now out to 1.16 to win this match, having been 1.01 earlier in the day. That price will crash when the next wicket comes and we’re two overs from the new ball.
Comments
You: "Show me where he said it"
WG: here you go
You: well he didn't say it this morning so it doesn't count
LOL
"If the choice is an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe or a Labour party which is broadly in line with the instinctive culture of the times, many people will go with the latter even if they’re not really convinced of the economic case."
Wouldn't many people go with an anti-EU Tory party with an anti-Muslim fringe over the current Labour party's cultural outlook regardless of the economic case?
And "properly and honestly"....? Certainly not. The Tories were let off because there was not sufficient proof to convict them. ie they had good, cunning and well-paid lawyers.
Britain had a referendum two years ago which one side fought with xenophobic lies. It won.
Who has the most apples? Don't all shout at once.
If the government decides to have a second referendum, that's fine. A General Election would also be acceptable. There would be all manner of ramifications following any such decision (and, let's be clear, I'm not talking about civil unrest or any of that nonsense), but we elect governments to govern.
I think leaving the EU is the right thing to do, but I value our system of government even more.
We Brits didn't choose Juncker or his government. Nor the path we are taking.
Now, you might say that it wasn't the number, it was the control, blah, blah, but we all know it was the number.
You might also say that it is not a moral position to not want foreigners in your country.
But actually, it is also possible to say not wanting foreigners in your country is a moral position and hence it can give an indication of one's moral worth.
The public have lost interest in everyday competence. Given that first the right and now the left have abandoned it, I’m coming to the view that the country needs an extended period of dogma-driven incompetence before the virtues of everyday competence can be reappreciated.
Looked on in this light, the frenzied incompetence of Brexit might make Britain early starters on this process. Or an awful warning to others.
The political reality is that Brexit was received over 17m votes on over 70% turnout.
I understand your seemingly all-consuming pain at the result but you really need to get over it and move on to something more productive in your life.
Like perhaps working towards a GE victory for a party with a mandate to rejoin...now that would be a cause that any decent person could take pride in.
Hence why in your quotation you dropped the word the. Because dropping a word out of my sentence changes its meaning. The Tories won the most votes that is a fact.
The obvious differentiator is that civil servants don’t make public statements or meet foreign leaders in public.
(In which case, remember to get rid of all but the last 'blockquote' at the bottom as well.)
Insofar as he is a servant, I don't think there's anything civil about the drunken old fool.
It depends upon how and why it gets voted down. If it gets voted down in the Lords then no I would want the Commons to stand its ground. If it gets voted down in the Commons then something would need to change.
If so you might want to apply for a job at the Whitehouse
But perhaps Mr Junker is obeying the instructions he has received from all the others..... What a thing is this democracy!
The Labour Party now hates her as a running dog capitalist pawn of the military-industrial complex.
Are you arguing that it is immoral to have a stance on immigration that recognises that the relative volume changes the overall impact on society?
No idea how the Labour Party might or might not react - nothing to do with me - and I fail to see the relevance of this particular comment of yours, Mr Topping.
The original point from the Tory side was that is somebody gets a relative majority, like Mrs May last year, then she has a right to impose her will on absolutely everybody. Not even the Conservative MPs will go along with that one.
At the 2017 General Election the Conservatives won the most seats but didn't win most of the seats. I think that works?
away from all this boring rubbish about BRexitin other news, Jos Buttler has got his highest Test score.If he does a Rob Key, we might at least not lose too disastrously.
The one I always remember was Monty Panasar at #11 staying in for a whole session for a draw in the 2009 Ashes series.
I’ve got £500 on India at 1/10, am not too worried about it yet.
And for all the dancing on the head of the pin, it is a convenient excuse to say that it was the control not the numbers. The Turkey scares were all about the numbers. And I am happy to add the words "any more" in my second statement.
The rabbit and the ferret (something you send in after a rabbit).
It's a shame they don't host Tests in Cardiff any more. I think every match they served up was an absolute nail-biting classic.
If you voted using the blood of a child you'd killed that morning as ink, then I'd argue your moral worth was pretty low
The one thing England have learned in the last decade, is that it’s worth spending time teaching the bowlers which way up to hold a bat. We’ve more batting depth in the side now than any other country.
Agree, Cardiff is a great venue.
Now he needs to at least double that (and that seems a trifle unlikely tbh).
New Threat
There was no vote before 1975, Ted Heath's Conservative Government took us into the community mandated (I think ) by their manifesto. I was only 7 years old then so I don't remember fully! The 1975 vote was held by the Labour Government of the time to confirm continuing membership of what was then called EEC. It could be argued that this too, like the recent one was party political management, this time by Labour. As I say, look it up
Stoke has defended as many balls as Butler so equally awesome. Survival is the name of the game.
Rapidly followed by Bairstow.
England could be all out tonight.
Or bat the rest of today and all day tomorrow for a draw.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/new-russian-hacking-targeted-republican-groups-microsoft-says/ar-BBMdotA?ocid=spartandhp
Of course, Vlad didn't in anyway influence the Brexit referendum though. He is a great fan of Britain's membership of the European Union!
And to think, people who opposed the insanity of Brexit have been called traitors. At least we haven't been supporting the foreign policy agenda of a foreign despot who desperately wants to see us in decline.
And on that note I will sign out.....