[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I think no deal guarantees Scottish Remain. The economic case becomes unsalable.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
You seem to have made an economic case immediately after saying that there's no economic case..
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
If the LDs were to revoke 50 by means of the ballet box, then a fair number of voters might well be kicking themselves in the face.
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
The leaflets distributed by the government and paid for by the taxpayer said the vote would be enacted regardless of the result.
And vote leave said we’d stay in the single market. What’s your point?
I was talking about the referendum, and that the government stated very clearly that it wasn't advisory.
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
If the LDs were to revoke 50 by means of the ballet box, then a fair number of voters might well be kicking themselves in the face.
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
"... it makes no provision as to the referendum’s legal effect.
That is because, strictly speaking, it has no legal effect. It will be purely advisory and, in law, the government could simply ignore the result. "
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
If the LDs were to revoke 50 by means of the ballet box, then a fair number of voters might well be kicking themselves in the face.
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
The leaflets distributed by the government and paid for by the taxpayer said the vote would be enacted regardless of the result.
And vote leave said we’d stay in the single market. What’s your point?
I was talking about the referendum, and that the government stated very clearly that it wasn't advisory.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Yes, I can see that makes sense.
That dispatches the view that the SNP would secretly prefer a No Deal crash because it would it would make independence more likely (it would of course but it seems the SNP are not so cynical.)
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
The ones who are alive will have had the chance to vote in two further General Elections by that point.
Nice snide reference to the elderly dying off again. Classy.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
Threatening the Ukrainian president that there could be consequences if he does not investigate Joe Biden's son would be a more accurate description. What do the Democrats gain? Maybe nothing. But perhaps the American public deserves to know that Trump was using the office of the Presidency and the power of the US to disadvantage a potential electoral opponent. Trump, of course, did not want the Americna public to know that.
In my view alleged corruption should be investigated.
(Is it true that Biden withheld $1bn of money from Ukraine unless they sacked the prosecutor investigating his son? That’s what I thought I heard on Radio 4)
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
You have had no problem kicking the 16.1m remain voters in the face up until now.
I’ve consistently supported a deal, but if Parliament won’t pass one then we need to leave without a deal.
That’s just going with the majority view.
Maybe we’re tired of being kicked in the face.
We voted to leave. The government is trying to implement that instruction
If you don’t like the way they have chosen to do that you can vote against them at the next election
The government is trying to implement that instruction and failing to do so because the Parliament returned subsequent to the referendum, in an election which saw parties that specifically rejected No Deal get most votes, is not persuaded that the government's approach is the right one.
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
If the LDs were to revoke 50 by means of the ballet box, then a fair number of voters might well be kicking themselves in the face.
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
The leaflets distributed by the government and paid for by the taxpayer said the vote would be enacted regardless of the result.
And vote leave said we’d stay in the single market. What’s your point?
I was talking about the referendum, and that the government stated very clearly that it wasn't advisory.
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
You have had no problem kicking the 16.1m remain voters in the face up until now.
I’ve consistently supported a deal, but if Parliament won’t pass one then we need to leave without a deal.
That’s just going with the majority view.
Maybe we’re tired of being kicked in the face.
We voted to leave. The government is trying to implement that instruction
If you don’t like the way they have chosen to do that you can vote against them at the next election
The government is trying to implement it by kicking Remainers in the face instead of trying to unite the country.
Maybe we’re tired of being kicked in the face.
And by the way, I did vote against it at the next General Election. That was in 2017.
That’s their decision
It is quite different from just ignoring the results of the vote
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I think no deal guarantees Scottish Remain. The economic case becomes unsalable.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
A whole lot of arrogance and delusion is dripping off that post.
I'm sure you'll be good enough to correct me point-by-point. It'd be unfortunate if you didn't.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Song of the Yoon.
'We'd definitely win! Definitely don't bring it on!'
Song of the Seperatists 'Once in a Generation Every 5 years we mean!
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
If the LDs were to revoke 50 by means of the ballet box, then a fair number of voters might well be kicking themselves in the face.
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
The leaflets distributed by the government and paid for by the taxpayer said the vote would be enacted regardless of the result.
And vote leave said we’d stay in the single market. What’s your point?
I was talking about the referendum, and that the government stated very clearly that it wasn't advisory.
Yes. So was I.
No, you were talking about the claims of some of the members of the leave campaign, which was heavily disputed by the remain side who said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market. No one disputed that the referendum decision would be enacted.
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
You have had no problem kicking the 16.1m remain voters in the face up until now.
I’ve consistently supported a deal, but if Parliament won’t pass one then we need to leave without a deal.
That’s just going with the majority view.
No it is not. We were all assured that the chances on No Deal were a million to one because this would be the easiest deal in history. We were also going to be part of a trading arc from Iceland to Turkey. And IIRC, we were also going to be able to have our cake and eat it....
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
Threatening the Ukrainian president that there could be consequences if he does not investigate Joe Biden's son would be a more accurate description. What do the Democrats gain? Maybe nothing. But perhaps the American public deserves to know that Trump was using the office of the Presidency and the power of the US to disadvantage a potential electoral opponent. Trump, of course, did not want the Americna public to know that.
In my view alleged corruption should be investigated.
(Is it true that Biden withheld $1bn of money from Ukraine unless they sacked the prosecutor investigating his son? That’s what I thought I heard on Radio 4)
And Trump is alleged to have corrupted the Office of the President of the United States by failing to uphold the oath he took when assuming the role. Hence the move to impeach. It will undoubtedly fail, but a light will be shone on his actions and the American public will draw their conclusions.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I think no deal guarantees Scottish Remain. The economic case becomes unsalable.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
You seem to have made an economic case immediately after saying that there's no economic case..
For the Scots there's no economic case. For anyone tied to them detaching themselves is a no-brainer.
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
You have had no problem kicking the 16.1m remain voters in the face up until now.
I’ve consistently supported a deal, but if Parliament won’t pass one then we need to leave without a deal.
That’s just going with the majority view.
Maybe we’re tired of being kicked in the face.
We voted to leave. The government is trying to implement that instruction
If you don’t like the way they have chosen to do that you can vote against them at the next election
The government is trying to implement it by kicking Remainers in the face instead of trying to unite the country.
Maybe we’re tired of being kicked in the face.
And by the way, I did vote against it at the next General Election. That was in 2017.
That’s their decision
It is quite different from just ignoring the results of the vote
We’ll see how bothered the country is at the next GE wont we?
And in a country that is "hideously white" they've got quite a job on their hands.
Nothing inherently hideous in it being white unless you are some kind of moronic retarded racist. Would you say same about colour in Africa for instance, what bollox.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
Did you mean Momentum?
Because a minute on Twitter following the ‘story’ brings you to a lot of people who say they love Jeremy Corbyn, and think the only reason for Brexit is so that Soros and the ‘Zionists’ can make billions.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I think no deal guarantees Scottish Remain. The economic case becomes unsalable.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
Labour dialling back the violent language there with rape
Tbf mentioning rape when discussing a policy that's directly connected to rape doesn't seem particularly excessive.
Perjorative language is perjotative language. Its hypocritical. You could say talking about surrender when it surrenders your bargaining position is not excessive. I'd say both are fine, but it seems rather odd labour think surrender is terrible but insinuating another party supports or turns a blind eye to rape is ok
And in a country that is "hideously white" they've got quite a job on their hands.
Nothing inherently hideous in it being white unless you are some kind of moronic retarded racist. Would you say same about colour in Africa for instance, what bollox.
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
The end never justifies the means. They established that at Nuremberg and several other places since.
If Brexit can only be delivered by trampling over the law then Brexit must die.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
Did you mean Momentum?
Because a minute on Twitter following the ‘story’ brings you to a lot of people who say they love Jeremy Corbyn, and think the only reason for Brexit is so that Soros and the ‘Zionists’ can make billions.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I think no deal guarantees Scottish Remain. The economic case becomes unsalable.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Just thinking about the latest polls, if the LDs, Greens and PC were able to agree a Remain pact they would very probably tip the balance from a Tory majority to one where a rainbow coalition would have power.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
I don't understand why the Greens and Lib Dems are separate parties anyway.
The Green manifesto is much closer to Labour (indeed somewhat to the left of Labour) than to the LibDems, but culturally they are arguably more like the LibDems - predominantly white middle-class. Very few Greens that I know are especially interested in taking power - rather, they see themselves as a movement, the political arm of Greenpeace etc.
I think they would cheerfully swap a clear run at a couple more seats for standing down in lots more, but the snags are (a) it's hard to find seats where the LibDems are willing to stand down and (b) the Greens delegate the final decision to the local party, which tends to be gung-ho.
Genuine question: at a debate yesterday, I asked a leading local LibDem what their policy would be if Brexit had happened - negotiate soft terms in the next stage, or what? He said without hesitation, "Apply to rejoin." Is this in fact official LD policy?
It strikes me as common sense. The future lies in coming together, not in erecting barriers a la Brexit.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
Threatening the Ukrainian president that there could be consequences if he does not investigate Joe Biden's son would be a more accurate description. What do the Democrats gain? Maybe nothing. But perhaps the American public deserves to know that Trump was using the office of the Presidency and the power of the US to disadvantage a potential electoral opponent. Trump, of course, did not want the Americna public to know that.
In my view alleged corruption should be investigated.
(Is it true that Biden withheld $1bn of money from Ukraine unless they sacked the prosecutor investigating his son? That’s what I thought I heard on Radio 4)
And Trump is alleged to have corrupted the Office of the President of the United States by failing to uphold the oath he took when assuming the role. Hence the move to impeach. It will undoubtedly fail, but a light will be shone on his actions and the American public will draw their conclusions.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
Threatening did not want the Americna public to know that.
In my view alleged corruption should be investigated.
(Is it true that Biden withheld $1bn of money from Ukraine unless they sacked the prosecutor investigating his son? That’s what I thought I heard on Radio 4)
And Trump is alleged to have corrupted the Office of the President of the United States by failing to uphold the oath he took when assuming the role. Hence the move to impeach. It will undoubtedly fail, but a light will be shone on his actions and the American public will draw their conclusions.
Nah. That doesn’t hold up for me.
Why this, why now?
I am sure it does not hold up for you! Many Republicans feel the same.
Genuine question: at a debate yesterday, I asked a leading local LibDem what their policy would be if Brexit had happened - negotiate soft terms in the next stage, or what? He said without hesitation, "Apply to rejoin." Is this in fact official LD policy?
It strikes me as common sense. The future lies in coming together, not in erecting barriers a la Brexit.
Heh. Common sense. That'll be the day. I fear that tribalism, civilization's making, will ultimately be its downfall.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonon’s acceptance of support fellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
Threatening the Ukrainian president that there could be consequences if he does not investigate Joe Biden's son would be a more accurate description. What do the Democrats gain? Maybe nothing. But perhaps the American public deserves to know that Trump was using the office of the Presidency and the power of the US to disadvantage a potential electoral opponent. Trump, of course, did not want the Americna public to know that.
In my view alleged corruption should be investigated.
(Is it true that Biden withheld $1bn of money from Ukraine unless they sacked the prosecutor investigating his son? That’s what I thought I heard on Radio 4)
And Trump is alleged to have corrupted the Office of the President of the United States by failing to uphold the oath he took when assuming the role. Hence the move to impeach. It will undoubtedly fail, but a light will be shone on his actions and the American public will draw their conclusions.
Nah. That doesn’t hold up for me.
Why this, why now?
Durham and Horowitz are ready to release the FISA abuse details and take down McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Comry and Strzok, this makes any such move look political
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
Threatening the Ukrainian president that there could be consequences if he does not investigate Joe Biden's son would be a more accurate description. What do the Democrats gain? Maybe nothing. But perhaps the American public deserves to know that Trump was using the office of the Presidency and the power of the US to disadvantage a potential electoral opponent. Trump, of course, did not want the Americna public to know that.
In my view alleged corruption should be investigated.
(Is it true that Biden withheld $1bn of money from Ukraine unless they sacked the prosecutor investigating his son? That’s what I thought I heard on Radio 4)
It's true except that the rest of the free world agreed that the prosecutor should be sacked, the prosecutor wasn't particularly investigating, and was linked via Russia to the company Trump now claims was under investigation (for which Biden's son worked). The new prosecutor was much less friendly to them than the sacked one, in this regard it would be a bit like a mouse offering you $1bn to replace your arthritic dog with a young and hungry cat.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Song of the Yoon.
'We'd definitely win! Definitely don't bring it on!'
Song of the Seperatists 'Once in a Generation Every 5 years we mean!
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Song of the Yoon.
'We'd definitely win! Definitely don't bring it on!'
The Unionist Parties of course will never propose any indyref at any time but the SNP as long as they are in power will keep trying to propose another one which is why we need a Unionist majority at Holyrood in 2021 to shut them up
Genuine question: at a debate yesterday, I asked a leading local LibDem what their policy would be if Brexit had happened - negotiate soft terms in the next stage, or what? He said without hesitation, "Apply to rejoin." Is this in fact official LD policy?
It strikes me as common sense. The future lies in coming together, not in erecting barriers a la Brexit.
I think you're right, but there's a degree to which I'd happily say that to a billionaire. Rejoining would be very difficult.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I think no deal guarantees Scottish Remain. The economic case becomes unsalable.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
You seem to have made an economic case immediately after saying that there's no economic case..
For the Scots there's no economic case. For anyone tied to them detaching themselves is a no-brainer.
Why so desperate not to then , kind of tells a story. Me doth think you and unionists in general doth protest too much, or in shorter prose , robbing barstewards sucking us dry
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
So you're quite happy for the Conserative and Unionist Party to pursue a Brexit outcome that makes the break up of the UK more likely?
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I think no deal guarantees Scottish Remain. The economic case becomes unsalable.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
You seem to have made an economic case immediately after saying that there's no economic case..
For the Scots there's no economic case. For anyone tied to them detaching themselves is a no-brainer.
Why so desperate not to then , kind of tells a story. Me doth think you and unionists in general doth protest too much, or in shorter prose , robbing barstewards sucking us dry
Well I'm not totally averse to Scottish Independence. I'm slightly against it as I think my Grandfather would object - the family has Scottish ancestry, and we served and died under British colours for a century or so. My Grandfather stood immovable for the national-anthem that used to be played when the tv coverage for the night ended.
Much of that is of course monarchy vs nation.
I'm sure that the economic case for an independent Scotland whilst the UK is in the EU is somewhat questionable. I'm doubly sure that if the UK was outside the EU that an independent Scotland wouldn't be well placed.
The Northern Ireland Assembly, the UK's MEPs and the majority of the UK's local authority councillors all have democratic mandates chronologiclly superior to the EU referendum result.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
You seem to have made an economic case immediately after saying that there's no economic case..
For the Scots there's no economic case. For anyone tied to them detaching themselves is a no-brainer.
Why so desperate not to then , kind of tells a story. Me doth think you and unionists in general doth protest too much, or in shorter prose , robbing barstewards sucking us dry
Well I'm not totally averse to Scottish Independence. I'm slightly against it as I think my Grandfather would object - the family has Scottish ancestry, and we served and died under British colours for a century or so. My Grandfather stood immovable for the national-anthem that used to be played when the tv coverage for the night ended.
Much of that is of course monarchy vs nation.
I'm sure that the economic case for an independent Scotland whilst the UK is in the EU is somewhat questionable. I'm doubly sure that if the UK was outside the EU that an independent Scotland wouldn't be well placed.
You would still be welcome in Scotland and for sure no-one knows what the economic case is as the UK attributes all the money to England and all the debts to the other countries , so it is a moot point. I prefer to look at the small countries all over east and west Europe who have nothing like the natural resources of Scotland and all are far better off than us. It should be a simple case to do well outside the UK, just look at the eastern European countries that escaped communism , they are all doing well.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
So you're quite happy for the Conserative and Unionist Party to pursue a Brexit outcome that makes the break up of the UK more likely?
He is brainwashed, unable to have an original thought
Genuine question: at a debate yesterday, I asked a leading local LibDem what their policy would be if Brexit had happened - negotiate soft terms in the next stage, or what? He said without hesitation, "Apply to rejoin." Is this in fact official LD policy?
It was the question that I submitted at the LD hustings, but it wasn't chosen to be asked.
I don't think that we have adopted rejoin as a policy so far but expect that we will.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
Threatening the Ukrainian president that there could be consequences if he does not investigate Joe Biden's son would be a more accurate description. What do the Democrats gain? Maybe nothing. But perhaps the American public deserves to know that Trump was using the office of the Presidency and the power of the US to disadvantage a potential electoral opponent. Trump, of course, did not want the Americna public to know that.
In my view alleged corruption should be investigated.
(Is it true that Biden withheld $1bn of money from Ukraine unless they sacked the prosecutor investigating his son? That’s what I thought I heard on Radio 4)
It's true except that the rest of the free world agreed that the prosecutor should be sacked, the prosecutor wasn't particularly investigating, and was linked via Russia to the company Trump now claims was under investigation (for which Biden's son worked). The new prosecutor was much less friendly to them than the sacked one, in this regard it would be a bit like a mouse offering you $1bn to replace your arthritic dog with a young and hungry cat.
But apart from that, spot on.
Ah, so the defense of Biden is that, yes, he was corrupt, but look- he was also stupid!
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
So you're quite happy for the Conserative and Unionist Party to pursue a Brexit outcome that makes the break up of the UK more likely?
If the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK is membership of the EU there is little left of the Union anyway, I would prefer Brexit with a Deal (and I think Boris will still pass the WA and a NI only backstop if he wins a majority) but the Leave vote must be respected regardless even with No Deal and if that was the case Scots could then determine whether they prefer the UK or EU
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
It suits the SNP avoiding independence at all costs as much as it suits the Brexit bunch of kuntz to avoid a no deal Brexit....
If they get the outcome they allegedly want, then they would have to own it..and the consequences, and take the blame....
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
It suits the SNP avoiding independence at all costs as much as it suits the Brexit bunch of kuntz to avoid a no deal Brexit....
If they get the outcome they allegedly want, then they would have to own it..and the consequences, and take the blame....
Leaver's big mistake* was not agreeing up front what Leave would look like.
* It's proving to be a mistake now but in fairness if they had defined it up front they wouldn't have won the referendum.
And the country would not be in this shambles with Brexit tearing it apart and reducing our credibility to zero.
So it would have been a lot better for them to have been honest than win this Pyrrhic victory.
The referendum gave leavers an unexpected and never-to-be-repeated opportunity to do what most of them have dedicated their career to doing, namely leave the EU. And had they put forward the kind of soft Brexit that was promised during the referendum - the Norway option for instance - the UK would now have left and be free to diverge further in a measured way over time if it wished. Had Johnson become PM in 2016 I think this would probably have happened. But the Tories elected May, a remainer, and in her desperation to prove herself a true convert she set out a much harder Brexit than most people expected. This encouraged the ERG to double down and demand even more, and so we have got to the current impasse. Which is quite likely to end in no Brexit at all IMO.
Leaver's big mistake* was not agreeing up front what Leave would look like.
* It's proving to be a mistake now but in fairness if they had defined it up front they wouldn't have won the referendum.
And the country would not be in this shambles with Brexit tearing it apart and reducing our credibility to zero.
So it would have been a lot better for them to have been honest than win this Pyrrhic victory.
The referendum gave leavers an unexpected and never-to-be-repeated opportunity to do what most of them have dedicated their career to doing, namely leave the EU. And had they put forward the kind of soft Brexit that was promised during the referendum - the Norway option for instance - the UK would now have left and be free to diverge further in a measured way over time if it wished. Had Johnson become PM in 2016 I think this would probably have happened. But the Tories elected May, a remainer, and in her desperation to prove herself a true convert she set out a much harder Brexit than most people expected. This encouraged the ERG to double down and demand even more, and so we have got to the current impasse. Which is quite likely to end in no Brexit at all IMO.
The Norway option would not respect the votes of millions of Leave voters to reduce immigration and the Vote Leave campaign promise to replace free movement with a points system, once EU migration is brought down in a decade it may be an option but not now
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
So you're quite happy for the Conserative and Unionist Party to pursue a Brexit outcome that makes the break up of the UK more likely?
If the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK is membership of the EU there is little left of the Union anyway, I would prefer Brexit with a Deal (and I think Boris will still pass the WA and a NI only backstop if he wins a majority) but the Leave vote must be respected regardless even with No Deal and if that was the case Scots could then determine whether they prefer the UK or EU
HYFUD..what do you think about Boris allegedly getting his blonde bit on the side a shed load public cash? I think this makes him unfit for any kind of public office.....I think it's despicable, morally repellant, and he should be banned from holding any type of public office.
Even if her company deserved this money it is fucking horrible that he was sniffing around her when he was married...he just comes across as pretty disgusting. Character matters...and Boris, the Prime Minister, has very little of it...
Leaver's big mistake* was not agreeing up front what Leave would look like.
* It's proving to be a mistake now but in fairness if they had defined it up front they wouldn't have won the referendum.
And the country would not be in this shambles with Brexit tearing it apart and reducing our credibility to zero.
So it would have been a lot better for them to have been honest than win this Pyrrhic victory.
The Cameron govt was incompetent to hold a referendum on something that parliament hadn't debated in detail. It should have drafted the exact leave terms before holding a vote.
In other words, if we get another referendum, it may be the one we should have held in 2016. The 2016 one was worthless. It needs to be annulled and replaced by another one which can clarify peoples' views.
The recent D Aaronovitch programme on R4 featured ~6 constituional experts who debated this for an hour. As David Allen Green says quite often, constitutional law should be dull and boring. If it ever becomes exciting, you've got a huge problem.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
You seem to have made an economic case immediately after saying that there's no economic case..
For the Scots there's no economic case. For anyone tied to them detaching themselves is a no-brainer.
Why so desperate not to then , kind of tells a story. Me doth think you and unionists in general doth protest too much, or in shorter prose , robbing barstewards sucking us dry
Well I'm not totally averse to Scottish Independence. I'm slightly against it as I think my Grandfather would object - the family has Scottish ancestry, and we served and died under British colours for a century or so. My Grandfather stood immovable for the national-anthem that used to be played when the tv coverage for the night ended.
Much of that is of course monarchy vs nation.
I'm sure that the economic case for an independent Scotland whilst the UK is in the EU is somewhat questionable. I'm doubly sure that if the UK was outside the EU that an independent Scotland wouldn't be well placed.
You would still be welcome in Scotland and for sure no-one knows what the economic case is as the UK attributes all the money to England and all the debts to the other countries , so it is a moot point. I prefer to look at the small countries all over east and west Europe who have nothing like the natural resources of Scotland and all are far better off than us. It should be a simple case to do well outside the UK, just look at the eastern European countries that escaped communism , they are all doing well.
When you look at a football team it's tricky to nail down what it is the supporters actually support. The players can change, the name can change, the ground can change etc.
I think you care about opportunity - Scotland flying free.
Quite how you achieve that isn't clear. Jumping off a cliff, whilst immediately box-ticking, may have its downsides.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
It suits the SNP avoiding independence at all costs as much as it suits the Brexit bunch of kuntz to avoid a no deal Brexit....
If they get the outcome they allegedly want, then they would have to own it..and the consequences, and take the blame....
another idiot appears
Supposing Brexit doesn't happen...do you seriously think that Scottish nationalism is a good thing if the UK remains in the EU?
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
So you're quite happy for the Conserative and Unionist Party to pursue a Brexit outcome that makes the break up of the UK more likely?
If the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK is membership of the EU there is little left of the Union anyway, I would prefer Brexit with a Deal (and I think Boris will still pass the WA and a NI only backstop if he wins a majority) but the Leave vote must be respected regardless even with No Deal and if that was the case Scots could then determine whether they prefer the UK or EU
HYFUD..what do you think about Boris allegedly getting his blonde bit on the side a shed load public cash? I think this makes him unfit for any kind of public office.....I think it's despicable, morally repellant, and he should be banned from holding any type of public office.
Even if her company deserved this money it is fucking horrible that he was sniffing around her when he was married...he just comes across as pretty disgusting. Character matters...and Boris, the Prime Minister, has very little of it...
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
A beautiful sunset out here all is calm although there is little on TV but to be honest reruns of Morse might be better than the current discussion. Let’s wait for the polls and the Sunday papers to see if things move on.
Leaver's big mistake* was not agreeing up front what Leave would look like.
* It's proving to be a mistake now but in fairness if they had defined it up front they wouldn't have won the referendum.
And the country would not be in this shambles with Brexit tearing it apart and reducing our credibility to zero.
So it would have been a lot better for them to have been honest than win this Pyrrhic victory.
The referendum gave leavers an unexpected and never-to-be-repeated opportunity to do what most of them have dedicated their career to doing, namely leave the EU. And had they put forward the kind of soft Brexit that was promised during the referendum - the Norway option for instance - the UK would now have left and be free to diverge further in a measured way over time if it wished. Had Johnson become PM in 2016 I think this would probably have happened. But the Tories elected May, a remainer, and in her desperation to prove herself a true convert she set out a much harder Brexit than most people expected. This encouraged the ERG to double down and demand even more, and so we have got to the current impasse. Which is quite likely to end in no Brexit at all IMO.
The Norway option would not respect the votes of millions of Leave voters to reduce immigration and the Vote Leave campaign promise to replace free movement with a points system, once EU migration is brought down in a decade it may be an option but not now
A no deal option would not respect the views of millions of remain, and leave, voters who were told we would get a good exit deal.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
So you're quite happy for the Conserative and Unionist Party to pursue a Brexit outcome that makes the break up of the UK more likely?
If the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK is membership of the EU there is little left of the Union anyway, I would prefer Brexit with a Deal (and I think Boris will still pass the WA and a NI only backstop if he wins a majority) but the Leave vote must be respected regardless even with No Deal and if that was the case Scots could then determine whether they prefer the UK or EU
HYFUD..what do you think about Boris allegedly getting his blonde bit on the side a shed load public cash? I think this makes him unfit for any kind of public office.....I think it's despicable, morally repellant, and he should be banned from holding any type of public office.
Even if her company deserved this money it is fucking horrible that he was sniffing around her when he was married...he just comes across as pretty disgusting. Character matters...and Boris, the Prime Minister, has very little of it...
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
I wasn't talking about Corbyn..
So, you don't think it matters that Boris Johnson's alleged mistress secured public cash when he was Mayor?
If we haven't left by next May then every councillor in the UK and the Mayor of London and the GLA will have democratic mandates chronologically superior to the EU referendum.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
Threatening the Ukrainian president that there could be consequences if he does not investigate Joe Biden's son would be a more accurate description. What do the Democrats gain? Maybe nothing. But perhaps the American public deserves to know that Trump was using the office of the Presidency and the power of the US to disadvantage a potential electoral opponent. Trump, of course, did not want the Americna public to know that.
In my view alleged corruption should be investigated.
(Is it true that Biden withheld $1bn of money from Ukraine unless they sacked the prosecutor investigating his son? That’s what I thought I heard on Radio 4)
It's true except that the rest of the free world agreed that the prosecutor should be sacked, the prosecutor wasn't particularly investigating, and was linked via Russia to the company Trump now claims was under investigation (for which Biden's son worked). The new prosecutor was much less friendly to them than the sacked one, in this regard it would be a bit like a mouse offering you $1bn to replace your arthritic dog with a young and hungry cat.
But apart from that, spot on.
Ah, so the defense of Biden is that, yes, he was corrupt, but look- he was also stupid!
No, the defence is that he did a thing he almost certainly would have done amyway if his son hadn't been involved at all, and that insofar as he had a familial conflict of interest, it would have pushed him to do the opposite of what he did. The corrupt act would have been to encourage the Ukrainians to leave the pro-Russian prosecutor in place, which would have benefited Biden Jr.
Leaver's big mistake* was not agreeing up front what Leave would look like.
* It's proving to be a mistake now but in fairness if they had defined it up front they wouldn't have won the referendum.
And the country would not be in this shambles with Brexit tearing it apart and reducing our credibility to zero.
So it would have been a lot better for them to have been honest than win this Pyrrhic victory.
The referendum gave leavers an unexpected and never-to-be-repeated opportunity to do what most of them have dedicated their career to doing, namely leave the EU. And had they put forward the kind of soft Brexit that was promised during the referendum - the Norway option for instance - the UK would now have left and be free to diverge further in a measured way over time if it wished. Had Johnson become PM in 2016 I think this would probably have happened. But the Tories elected May, a remainer, and in her desperation to prove herself a true convert she set out a much harder Brexit than most people expected. This encouraged the ERG to double down and demand even more, and so we have got to the current impasse. Which is quite likely to end in no Brexit at all IMO.
I don't think I agree with this analysis. Leavers doubling down - by no means limited to the ERG - is because the German car manufacturers didn't do their job of forcing the EU to thrash out a partnership of equals, where the the UK would keep everything it wanted from the current arrangement with none of the commitments..
Brexit was promoted on several false premises. We're seeing the contradictions of the Leave vote playing out.
Or to put it another way, it was rational for Brexiteers to reject the only actual way out of the European Union.
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
I wasn't talking about Corbyn..
So, you don't think it matters that Boris Johnson's alleged mistress secured public cash when he was Mayor?
It is a problem though, isn't it? Every time Johnson's lack of morality and alleged corruption is raised, somebody will just say 'whatabout Corbyn?' Jennie Formby alone is an extremely awkward one to explain away, but his persistent refusal to retire Abbott despite her decline in health also springs to mind.
Which may explain why despite everything the Brexiteers, er, Conservatives are ten points clear in the polls. Even though they would be 50 points behind an opposition led by somebody who could pass for sane and pretend to be honest.
The next election will be interesting IFF the LDs can consistently get ahead of Labour in the polls because former Tories who don't want Corbyn to be PM under any circumstances will be able to consider voting for the yellows. But if Labour stay in second place a lot of people are going to hold their noses and vote Conservative to prevent Corbyn from having any chance of winning.
Leaver's big mistake* was not agreeing up front what Leave would look like.
* It's proving to be a mistake now but in fairness if they had defined it up front they wouldn't have won the referendum.
And the country would not be in this shambles with Brexit tearing it apart and reducing our credibility to zero.
So it would have been a lot better for them to have been honest than win this Pyrrhic victory.
The referendum gave leavers an unexpected and never-to-be-repeated opportunity to do what most of them have dedicated their career to doing, namely leave the EU. And had they put forward the kind of soft Brexit that was promised during the referendum - the Norway option for instance - the UK would now have left and be free to diverge further in a measured way over time if it wished. Had Johnson become PM in 2016 I think this would probably have happened. But the Tories elected May, a remainer, and in her desperation to prove herself a true convert she set out a much harder Brexit than most people expected. This encouraged the ERG to double down and demand even more, and so we have got to the current impasse. Which is quite likely to end in no Brexit at all IMO.
The Norway option would not respect the votes of millions of Leave voters to reduce immigration and the Vote Leave campaign promise to replace free movement with a points system, once EU migration is brought down in a decade it may be an option but not now
A no deal option would not respect the views of millions of remain, and leave, voters who were told we would get a good exit deal.
Hyfud think it's quite OK that Boris funnels loads off public cash to his mistress so I wouldn't worry too much what his views are on anything else....
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
So you're quite happy for the Conserative and Unionist Party to pursue a Brexit outcome that makes the break up of the UK more likely?
If the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK is membership of the EU there is little left of the Union anyway, I would prefer Brexit with a Deal (and I think Boris will still pass the WA and a NI only backstop if he wins a majority) but the Leave vote must be respected regardless even with No Deal and if that was the case Scots could then determine whether they prefer the UK or EU
HYFUD..what do you think about Boris allegedly getting his blonde bit on the side a shed load public cash? I think this makes him unfit for any kind of public office.....I think it's despicable, morally repellant, and he should be banned from holding any type of public office.
Even if her company deserved this money it is fucking horrible that he was sniffing around her when he was married...he just comes across as pretty disgusting. Character matters...and Boris, the Prime Minister, has very little of it...
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
I wasn't talking about Corbyn..
So, you don't think it matters that Boris Johnson's alleged mistress secured public cash when he was Mayor?
She didn't, her companies did for grants for young entrepreneurs and no I have no problem with that at all
After working for a couple of days Vanilla embed is no longer displaying on Google Chrome again.
Back to Firefox.
I had lots of problems which I reported to this forum and even to Vanilla. But it seems to have been due to dodgy rural broadband, i.e. blame BT's cables and exchanges.
A beautiful sunset out here all is calm although there is little on TV but to be honest reruns of Morse might be better than the current discussion. Let’s wait for the polls and the Sunday papers to see if things move on.
I think this a particularly pithy quote: "Where Burkean conservatives tended to value the institutions they found in the past, reactionaries value the identities they can find there."
Which is why the Trump and Britain Trump attacks on institutions such as Parliament, Constitution, Judiciary, Civil Service, Universities etc are so significant. There is a clear nostalgia for times before destabilising globalisation, without an appreciation of the institutional foundations of those times.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
So you're quite happy for the Conserative and Unionist Party to pursue a Brexit outcome that makes the break up of the UK more likely?
If the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK is membership of the EU there is little left of the Union anyway, I would prefer Brexit with a Deal (and I think Boris will still pass the WA and a NI only backstop if he wins a majority) but the Leave vote must be respected regardless even with No Deal and if that was the case Scots could then determine whether they prefer the UK or EU
HYFUD..what do you think about Boris allegedly getting his blonde bit on the side a shed load public cash? I think this makes him unfit for any kind of public office.....I think it's despicable, morally repellant, and he should be banned from holding any type of public office.
Even if her company deserved this money it is fucking horrible that he was sniffing around her when he was married...he just comes across as pretty disgusting. Character matters...and Boris, the Prime Minister, has very little of it...
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
I wasn't talking about Corbyn..
So, you don't think it matters that Boris Johnson's alleged mistress secured public cash when he was Mayor?
@HYUFD’s algorithms prevent him criticising a sitting Tory PM. It’s kinda like Asimov’s laws of robotics.
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
I wasn't talking about Corbyn..
So, you don't think it matters that Boris Johnson's alleged mistress secured public cash when he was Mayor?
It is a problem though, isn't it? Every time Johnson's lack of morality and alleged corruption is raised, somebody will just say 'whatabout Corbyn?' Jennie Formby alone is an extremely awkward one to explain away, but his persistent refusal to retire Abbott despite her decline in health also springs to mind.
Which may explain why despite everything the Brexiteers, er, Conservatives are ten points clear in the polls. Even though they would be 50 points behind an opposition led by somebody who could pass for sane and pretend to be honest.
Good point..we wouldn't have Brexit, or this threat of no deal without Corbyn..he has been a dream to the populists to run riot...
That said, Johnson is a degenerate, morally repugnant, corrupted lowlife who should not be allowed anywhere near high office....
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
It makes it more likely, that does not mean it guarantees it though
So you're quite happy for the Conserative and Unionist Party to pursue a Brexit outcome that makes the break up of the UK more likely?
If the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK is membership of the EU there is little left of the Union anyway, I would prefer Brexit with a Deal (and I think Boris will still pass the WA and a NI only backstop if he wins a majority) but the Leave vote must be respected regardless even with No Deal and if that was the case Scots could then determine whether they prefer the UK or EU
HYFUD..what do you think about Boris allegedly getting his blonde bit on the side a shed load public cash? I think this makes him unfit for any kind of public office.....I think it's despicable, morally repellant, and he should be banned from holding any type of public office.
Even if her company deserved this money it is fucking horrible that he was sniffing around her when he was married...he just comes across as pretty disgusting. Character matters...and Boris, the Prime Minister, has very little of it...
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
He’s hung around with Steve Bannon which, to my mind, is as bad. He also, while editor of the Spectator, allowed Taki to to publish a piece in said magazine that was investigated by the police for incitement to racial hatred. So get off your high horse.
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
I wasn't talking about Corbyn..
So, you don't think it matters that Boris Johnson's alleged mistress secured public cash when he was Mayor?
It is a problem though, isn't it? Every time Johnson's lack of morality and alleged corruption is raised, somebody will just say 'whatabout Corbyn?' Jennie Formby alone is an extremely awkward one to explain away, but his persistent refusal to retire Abbott despite her decline in health also springs to mind.
Which may explain why despite everything the Brexiteers, er, Conservatives are ten points clear in the polls. Even though they would be 50 points behind an opposition led by somebody who could pass for sane and pretend to be honest.
Good point..we wouldn't have Brexit, or this threat of no deal without Corbyn..he has been a dream to the populists to run riot...
That said, Johnson is a degenerate, morally repugnant, corrupted lowlife who should not be allowed anywhere near high office....
I'm not sure I'd go as far as your first sentence - as for your second, he is himself an unabashed populist and has shown it again today.
For your final sentence, first of all I think you are far too generous to Johnson, but again, your criticisms apply with equal force to Corbyn.
A beautiful sunset out here all is calm although there is little on TV but to be honest reruns of Morse might be better than the current discussion. Let’s wait for the polls and the Sunday papers to see if things move on.
Strictly is on
When you don’t know who the celebs are and have ballroom danced for thirty years it’s not at all attractive the original come dancing was more honest about what ballroom is about.
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
I wasn't talking about Corbyn..
So, you don't think it matters that Boris Johnson's alleged mistress secured public cash when he was Mayor?
It is a problem though, isn't it? Every time Johnson's lack of morality and alleged corruption is raised, somebody will just say 'whatabout Corbyn?' Jennie Formby alone is an extremely awkward one to explain away, but his persistent refusal to retire Abbott despite her decline in health also springs to mind.
Which may explain why despite everything the Brexiteers, er, Conservatives are ten points clear in the polls. Even though they would be 50 points behind an opposition led by somebody who could pass for sane and pretend to be honest.
Good point..we wouldn't have Brexit, or this threat of no deal without Corbyn..he has been a dream to the populists to run riot...
That said, Johnson is a degenerate, morally repugnant, corrupted lowlife who should not be allowed anywhere near high office....
I'm not sure I'd go as far as your first sentence - as for your second, he is himself an unabashed populist and has shown it again today.
For your final sentence, first of all I think you are far too generous to Johnson, but again, your criticisms apply with equal force to Corbyn.
There are many epithets fair to attach to Jezza, but not corruption, I think.
I don't think most people care either way or if they do already hate Boris anyway and Boris still has not hung around with terrorists unlike Corbyn
You may be right, that most people won't change their love Boris / hate Boris views based on this. However, if his actions turn out to be sanctionable and illegal, it would be a much less impressive (metaphorical) martyrdom than his intention of (metaphorically) dying in a ditch to save Brexit.
However, a chunk of pro-Brexit thinking is (not entirely unreasonably) based on the EU's lack of frugality, transparency and accountability. Shouldn't it bother those who support the Prime Minister if he has been accused of things that they would be appalled about were a Eurocrat to have done them?
Leaver's big mistake* was not agreeing up front what Leave would look like.
* It's proving to be a mistake now but in fairness if they had defined it up front they wouldn't have won the referendum.
And the country would not be in this shambles with Brexit tearing it apart and reducing our credibility to zero.
So it would have been a lot better for them to have been honest than win this Pyrrhic victory.
The referendum gave leavers an unexpected and never-to-be-repeated opportunity to do what most of them have dedicated their career to doing, namely leave the EU. And had they put forward the kind of soft Brexit that was promised during the referendum - the Norway option for instance - the UK would now have left and be free to diverge further in a measured way over time if it wished. Had Johnson become PM in 2016 I think this would probably have happened. But the Tories elected May, a remainer, and in her desperation to prove herself a true convert she set out a much harder Brexit than most people expected. This encouraged the ERG to double down and demand even more, and so we have got to the current impasse. Which is quite likely to end in no Brexit at all IMO.
The Norway option would not respect the votes of millions of Leave voters to reduce immigration and the Vote Leave campaign promise to replace free movement with a points system, once EU migration is brought down in a decade it may be an option but not now
A no deal option would not respect the views of millions of remain, and leave, voters who were told we would get a good exit deal.
Hyfud think it's quite OK that Boris funnels loads off public cash to his mistress so I wouldn't worry too much what his views are on anything else....
Is it accurate to describe the woman as a mistress when the man is actually paying?
Comments
That is because, strictly speaking, it has no legal effect. It will be purely advisory and, in law, the government could simply ignore the result. "
https://constitution-unit.com/2016/01/19/what-happens-if-we-vote-for-brexit/
That dispatches the view that the SNP would secretly prefer a No Deal crash because it would it would make independence more likely (it would of course but it seems the SNP are not so cynical.)
(Is it true that Biden withheld $1bn of money from Ukraine unless they sacked the prosecutor investigating his son? That’s what I thought I heard on Radio 4)
It is quite different from just ignoring the results of the vote
'Once in a Generation
Every 5 years we mean!
But NOBODY promised us a No Deal
You don't have to stay up for Match of the Day anymore-
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNAf1k0yIjyGu3k9BwAg3lg
Every PL game from 17:15 Saturday they say
Because a minute on Twitter following the ‘story’ brings you to a lot of people who say they love Jeremy Corbyn, and think the only reason for Brexit is so that Soros and the ‘Zionists’ can make billions.
You could say talking about surrender when it surrenders your bargaining position is not excessive.
I'd say both are fine, but it seems rather odd labour think surrender is terrible but insinuating another party supports or turns a blind eye to rape is ok
If Brexit can only be delivered by trampling over the law then Brexit must die.
I think they would cheerfully swap a clear run at a couple more seats for standing down in lots more, but the snags are (a) it's hard to find seats where the LibDems are willing to stand down and (b) the Greens delegate the final decision to the local party, which tends to be gung-ho.
Why this, why now?
* It's proving to be a mistake now but in fairness if they had defined it up front they wouldn't have won the referendum.
I fear that tribalism, civilization's making, will ultimately be its downfall.
So it would have been a lot better for them to have been honest than win this Pyrrhic victory.
But apart from that, spot on.
Much of that is of course monarchy vs nation.
I'm sure that the economic case for an independent Scotland whilst the UK is in the EU is somewhat questionable. I'm doubly sure that if the UK was outside the EU that an independent Scotland wouldn't be well placed.
I don't think that we have adopted rejoin as a policy so far but expect that we will.
If they get the outcome they allegedly want, then they would have to own it..and the consequences, and take the blame....
I think this makes him unfit for any kind of public office.....I think it's despicable, morally repellant, and he should be banned from holding any type of public office.
Even if her company deserved this money it is fucking horrible that he was sniffing around her when he was married...he just comes across as pretty disgusting. Character matters...and Boris, the Prime Minister, has very little of it...
Back to Firefox.
In other words, if we get another referendum, it may be the one we should have held in 2016. The 2016 one was worthless. It needs to be annulled and replaced by another one which can clarify peoples' views.
The recent D Aaronovitch programme on R4 featured ~6 constituional experts who debated this for an hour. As David Allen Green says quite often, constitutional law should be dull and boring. If it ever becomes exciting, you've got a huge problem.
I think you care about opportunity - Scotland flying free.
Quite how you achieve that isn't clear. Jumping off a cliff, whilst immediately box-ticking, may have its downsides.
So, you don't think it matters that Boris Johnson's alleged mistress secured public cash when he was Mayor?
Brexit was promoted on several false premises. We're seeing the contradictions of the Leave vote playing out.
Or to put it another way, it was rational for Brexiteers to reject the only actual way out of the European Union.
Which may explain why despite everything the Brexiteers, er, Conservatives are ten points clear in the polls. Even though they would be 50 points behind an opposition led by somebody who could pass for sane and pretend to be honest.
A GE must be the next step in this crisis but a fudged TM deal remains my choice
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/07/06/conservatism-is-fighting-for-its-life-against-reactionary-nationalism
I think this a particularly pithy quote: "Where Burkean conservatives tended to value the institutions they found in the past, reactionaries value the identities they can find there."
Which is why the Trump and Britain Trump attacks on institutions such as Parliament, Constitution, Judiciary, Civil Service, Universities etc are so significant. There is a clear nostalgia for times before destabilising globalisation, without an appreciation of the institutional foundations of those times.
That said, Johnson is a degenerate, morally repugnant, corrupted lowlife who should not be allowed anywhere near high office....
'Sunny Boston,' huh. Alright for some. Weather here sucks more than an intern Bill Clinton is paying by the orgasm.
Big G..I'll break free from the polarisation for a bit..you were right about Theresa May. Bring her back.,.she was a leader fore our times....
For your final sentence, first of all I think you are far too generous to Johnson, but again, your criticisms apply with equal force to Corbyn.
After a mere three months in office this may be considered a truly remarkable achievement.
However, a chunk of pro-Brexit thinking is (not entirely unreasonably) based on the EU's lack of frugality, transparency and accountability. Shouldn't it bother those who support the Prime Minister if he has been accused of things that they would be appalled about were a Eurocrat to have done them?