Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Swinson’s great LD gamble – making cancelling Brexit party pol

1234568»

Comments

  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,396
    nico67 said:


    We are talking about tiny Luxembourg, for God's sake. It has the population of a London borough.

    If we decide to Revoke, could we foresee an elected European President one day? I suspect quite a few people in Britain would now be pleased to vote Bettel.
    He said what many are thinking re Brexit . Donald Tusk would get my vote though .
    Just imagine it. Nigel Farage, President of Europe.
  • Luxembourg suffers from the political equivalent of small dog syndrome.

    That said, there’s starting to be an air of Richard III about Boris Johnson.

    Richard 3rd, a popular king who was affable and loved his wife dearly as opposed to the Tudor scum that followed and rewrote history to demonise him
    He was a paranoid weirdo, and a murderer.

    He executed his sister-in-laws family, put the rightful heirs in the Tower for their ‘safekeeping’ (from whence they promptly disappeared) conspired to make his brothers marriage illegitimate so he could be proclaimed as King, and tried to shag his niece.

    He rightly met a sticky end.
    Nonsense, the princes in the tower were killed by Henry after he usurped the throne and they lost the protection of their uncle
    No, Henry Tudor took the throne because Richard III’s opponents knew the princes in the tower were almost certainly dead. His hold on the throne was tenuous and there had already been one attempt to rescue them. Most historians agree they were killed at some point between September 1483 and July 1484, well before the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. Richard made no attempt to disprove the rumours in circulation by parading them to show they were still alive. He also failed to open any investigation whatsoever into their murder.

    If they hadn’t been killed, there wouldn’t have been support for Henry Tudor to take the throne in the first place.
    Henry Tudor took the throne because he usurped it by victory in battle, period. The War of the Roses had been raging for 30 years. There is no clear idea on what happened to the princes nor who killed them if they were killed. Just histories and suspicions written after the fact by the victors. What is known is Richard's legal reforms etc which were very much in favour of the commoners and indeed the city of York expressed outrage at his murder by Henry Tudor risking retribution.
    Which is quite a turnaround given York was not 'Yorkist' for most of the war.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    To Mike's point in the header:

    Much as I am pro-Brexit, I don't see how a party standing at an election on a platform of reversing A50 is anti-democratic. As many on this forum have pointed out, democratic will does change over time.

    I have a problem with holding referendums until the public vote for the 'right' option. I don't have a problem with a referendum outcome being overturned by a general election where the winning party has clearly campaigned on that issue.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    Scott_P said:
    Why would the fact that they come from a small country make any difference?
    I guess ego.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,664

    Luxembourg suffers from the political equivalent of small dog syndrome.

    That said, there’s starting to be an air of Richard III about Boris Johnson.

    Richard 3rd, a popular king who was affable and loved his wife dearly as opposed to the Tudor scum that followed and rewrote history to demonise him
    He was a paranoid weirdo, and a murderer.

    He executed his sister-in-laws family, put the rightful heirs in the Tower for their ‘safekeeping’ (from whence they promptly disappeared) conspired to make his brothers marriage illegitimate so he could be proclaimed as King, and tried to shag his niece.

    He rightly met a sticky end.
    Nonsense, the princes in the tower were killed by Henry after he usurped the throne and they lost the protection of their uncle
    No, Henry Tudor took the throne because Richard III’s opponents knew the princes in the tower were almost certainly dead. His hold on the throne was tenuous and there had already been one attempt to rescue them. Most historians agree they were killed at some point between September 1483 and July 1484, well before the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. Richard made no attempt to disprove the rumours in circulation by parading them to show they were still alive. He also failed to open any investigation whatsoever into their murder.

    If they hadn’t been killed, there wouldn’t have been support for Henry Tudor to take the throne in the first place.
    Henry Tudor took the throne because he usurped it by victory in battle, period. The War of the Roses had been raging for 30 years. There is no clear idea on what happened to the princes nor who killed them if they were killed. Just histories and suspicions written after the fact by the victors. What is known is Richard's legal reforms etc which were very much in favour of the commoners and indeed the city of York expressed outrage at his murder by Henry Tudor risking retribution.
    Which is quite a turnaround given York was not 'Yorkist' for most of the war.
    My favourite account is that Edward the eldest died of natural causes in the Tower and that the younger Richard was rescued and taken to Burgundy. He subsequently returned to England, accepted that Henry had secured the crown and lived out his life as a minor member of the nobility.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,873
    edited September 2019
    deleted
This discussion has been closed.