Sturgeon: "we are not proposing a referendum now - we are proposing to give the people of Scotland a choice once Brexit is clear but before it is too late"
That'll be never then.
That'll be never then.
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
With hindsight the voting options in the referendum should have been
a) Remain in the EU
b) Leave the EU but have access to the single market
c) Leave the EU but be part of the customs union
d) Leave the EU and single market.
That way, Remainers would have achieved the desired result. Where is the person who designed the 2016 referendum? Why did he not put these extra options in?
We've got a large enough problem as it is ...... something like 325 UkipConservatives, throw in the DUP and Unionists from Northern Ireland. If we had PR, UKIP would have something like 60MPs?
Something like that exists here in Mallorca. In order to get a top job at the university here on the island, or become a politician you need to speak both Castellano (Spanish) and Catalan. Thus the island is depriving itself of some of the best brains from the Spanish speaking world.
Fillon won't make it past the first round. Macron will be President.
I believe ultimate responsibility for the referendum lies with a Mr D Cameron. Last seen selling the rights to his memoirs and charging six figures for a one hour talk.
Indeed. He was also confident enough that a simple majority would be fine as it was never in doubt. So the idiot allowed a constitutional change to occur on a whim, a campaign which shouted 'don't listen to the experts', £365M allocated to the NHS which won't happen, and protest votes. Oh, and the rationing of a few extra immigrants which are necessary to keep the economy ticking over. It should have been a two-thirds majority requirement to leave the EU.
I have some time for that view (although nothing like that was included in the 1975 referendum) and it would have been very difficult for Cameron to do it. He was criticised a lot for not having the promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and if he'd held this one and decided to include a requirement for a super-majority he would have been absolutely slaughtered.
What an absolute goat-****. So - our agricultural exports could go up in price by up to 40%, air ticket prices will go up, there'll have to be a negotiation on our planes landing in the U.S. and Europe and the border between the Republic and N.I. will be a mess ....... great.
Thanks for posting, Vin. This has made me very relaxed
Among my thoughts when watching that clip was, "if only Hilary Benn were leader of the Labour Party".
Last edited:
Just that last point, the fact that UK citizens will no longer be eligible for the free EHIC health insurance card, is enough to make Brexit a non-starter. What the absolute **** have we done?
That particular point was mentioned prior to the vote but everything was scare mongering apparently........
Exactly. A lot of people certainly couldn't have realised the full ramifications of a "leave" vote, or as you imply, didn't believe them anyway!
http://news.sky.com/story/gchq-claim-we-bugged-donald-trump-utterly-ridiculous-10804341
Apparently we haven't been bugging Trump. Not surprised he's got nothing intelligent to say.
(I read the headline quick and added an er to bugged! what? Oh
)
Apparently we haven't been bugging Trump. Not surprised he's got nothing intelligent to say.
(I read the headline quick and added an er to bugged! what? Oh
)
Ditto. As someone commented the other day, we had a PMQ session containing a massive U turn. How can a party support a leader who performs so badly that the government is the side left smiling at the end?
I think Benn is a great potential leader. Unfortunately that assumes that the Labour party can be persuaded to choose him. It would require the Momentum lunatics to be self-aware enough to realise that they are not helping, so I think it's very unlikely.
Vin
By the same journalist, but unable to find a direct link.
By Ros Wynne-Jones
Regular readers of this page will know the Carmichaels well.
Jayson and his wife Charlotte, who has spina bifida, fought the bedroom tax all the way to the Supreme Court and won. They aren’t able to share a bedroom because of support required for Charlotte’s disability.
Their win gave hope to thousands of people, but – unbelievably – the DWP has dragged the couple back to court again. This time to argue a lower tier tribunal shouldn’t have used the Human Rights Act to make a ruling.
So the Carmichaels’ fight, for themselves and others, goes on.
If the Government is successful it could prevent people from relying on the Human Rights Act to appeal against benefits decisions.
We wish them luck and look forward to reporting the next stage in court.
Just how much public money is the DWP going to waste, in legal fees, in it's ongoing attempt to defend the indefensible?
Makes me feel sick that we are governed by people who think this is acceptable.
ImpSaint - as our resident political expert (as far as I can see) why is there such a thing as Diplomatic immunity? seems crazy to me?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39321568
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39321568
It's to allow diplomats to work without hindrance. If it didn't exist then you could stop a diplomat from doing his job at any time by dropping him in jail (particularly in countries with dodgy legal systems). It's a way of making sure that doesn't happen, even at times of international tension.
Any country can waive its diplomats' immunity if they choose (and they quite frequently do if the crime is noteworthy).
Vin