My point is, people who voted leave see the government rowing back on it. A boatload of ministers resigned because that's what they thought was happening when the Lancaster Gate speech version of Brexit turns in to Chequers version of Brexit.
I'm not surprised that people are digging their heels in over this. When people vote Brexit and the establishment is doing its best to deliver Bremain, they're not being persuaded otherwise, they feel they're having their vote ignored.
Funny how the people are sticking to their guns, yet the government dither, vacillate and arse things up.
Having listened to a number of people trying to explain and failing why they voted for Brexit or demonstrate any understanding of the consequences I'm unclear how they are sticking to their guns?
If the politicians don't understand it then it seems unlikely that most of the population will either. Hearing some idiot say 'I want my country back' as a reason for voting Brexit and then being unable to explain what they mean by that doesn't suggest a high level of debate.
If we end up with a 'no deal' Brexit and the economy is royally shafted then I'm assuming those who voted Remain will still get the blame for it.
We are governed by incompetent fools as the whole Brexit process has proved - they don't have a clue and won't work together.
I think the point Faisal Islam is making is that there is no mandate for a no deal Brexit. None whatsoever. And within the "Leave Brexit with negotiated deal" camp, I believe there will be some who actually don't want to leave but think that trying to remain will set off a shitshow fired up by the fundamentalists. I am almost in that camp myself.
There’s as much a mandate for Brexit with a deal as there is for a no deal Brexit.
My point is, people who voted leave see the government rowing back on it. A boatload of ministers resigned because that's what they thought was happening when the Lancaster Gate speech version of Brexit turns in to Chequers version of Brexit.
People voted Brexit with the understanding that the government would negotiate it. The government has made a pigs ear of it, but Brexit can be a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. To call a soft Brexit no Brexit is ridiculous.
That's just my take on why the polling seems stuck on 50:50 when by rights, given how much of a mess its turning into, you'd think people would decide Brexit is not such a good idea. I have to listen to my whiny Remain friends bang on about what a disaster it all is and my angry Leave friends getting more and more intransigent about a hard brexit just to get it over and done with.
Fact is, they've done they whole thing arse backwards. There should have been an independent commission to come up with options for Brexit, then put that to a vote. Not rely on politicians tell lies about impending disasters or bundles of extra cash for NHS, then figure it all out later.
I'm not surprised that people are digging their heels in over this. When people vote Brexit and the establishment is doing its best to deliver Bremain, they're not being persuaded otherwise, they feel they're having their vote ignored.
Funny how the people are sticking to their guns, yet the government dither, vacillate and arse things up.
Having listened to a number of people trying to explain and failing why they voted for Brexit or demonstrate any understanding of the consequences I'm unclear how they are sticking to their guns?
If the politicians don't understand it then it seems unlikely that most of the population will either. Hearing some idiot say 'I want my country back' as a reason for voting Brexit and then being unable to explain what they mean by that doesn't suggest a high level of debate.
If we end up with a 'no deal' Brexit and the economy is royally shafted then I'm assuming those who voted Remain will still get the blame for it.
We are governed by incompetent fools as the whole Brexit process has proved - they don't have a clue and won't work together.
Could someone please explain what possible benefit the Brexit referendum brought the country? There was no planning behind the referendum, the electorate were poorly informed and we have a set of politicians who seem incapable of developing a plan or working together two years on from the result.
It's an absolute fucking mess however you voted in the referendum. If we end up with a 'no deal' situation by default because our politicians are too useless to agree on a plan I'm unclear how the UK can have a rosy future.
I may be missing something but I'm unclear how we will benefit if no planning takes place. Are we just supposed to keep our fingers crossed and hope everything will be okay?
it was a recurring theme of the Vote Leave campaign that there would not be a no deal as the EU would be falling over backwards to do a deal with us! Now they are trying to tell us everybody voted for no deal! I mean, people have their preferences, but why not be a little bit honest?
Could someone please explain what possible benefit the Brexit referendum brought the country? There was no planning behind the referendum, the electorate were poorly informed and we have a set of politicians who seem incapable of developing a plan or working together two years on from the result.
It's an absolute fucking mess however you voted in the referendum. If we end up with a 'no deal' situation by default because our politicians are too useless to agree on a plan I'm unclear how the UK can have a rosy future.
I may be missing something but I'm unclear how we will benefit if no planning takes place. Are we just supposed to keep our fingers crossed and hope everything will be okay?
Is anybody on here genuinely confident?
There are no benefits, a referendum was a completely mental way to try and decide this extraordinarily complicated topic.
Could someone please explain what possible benefit the Brexit referendum brought the country?
Yes. I can.
David Cameron called the referendum because his party was unable to come to a consensus on EU membership. The referendum was promised, and delivered, in order to ensure that the Conservative party would be brought together, with europhiles and eurosceptics within the party ensuring that they worked together for the good of the party, the government and. most of all, the country. And with this consensus and collegiate thinking, the country would be well-managed, better off and with a clear and distinct path forwards to a prosperous future.
And, as David Cameron always thought things through very clearly, that must be what's happening. Right?
My point is, people who voted leave see the government rowing back on it. A boatload of ministers resigned because that's what they thought was happening when the Lancaster Gate speech version of Brexit turns in to Chequers version of Brexit.
Let me have another go. In what way is the version of leave pursued by the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Government "rowing back on it"?
This unspeakably unpleasant front page from the disgraced and disgraceful Sun (owned by an immigrant) has drawn a lot of criticism and a lot of questions, over and above "can you guess what his age is?", including: 1. Who is the picture of? 2. Do we know that it's someone that is claiming to be a child, as the caption says? 3. Why have The Sun printed a picture of someone without their agreement on the front page of their newspaper, in the knowledge that it's illegal to do so if they are under 18? 4. How young does a refugee have to be, to be treated with fairness and compassion? 5. How good does it make The Sun's readers feel when they see a foreign person they can look down on?
Interesting that attacks on May for hard Brexit are coming from Boris and Mogg. Yet their pal Davis who has got nowhere in 2 years of pursuing their agenda is remarkably quiet.
Hard Brexit/No Deal means hard Irish border or WTO tariffs and economic sanctions.
The problem is, whenever people are asked to make a firm decision they tend to stick with it for very much the same reasons when they made the decision. Coupled to that, if an idea hasn't been logiced in, it can't normally be lociged out... So no matter the evidence for brexit being a disaster, people won't change their minds since a) that's just project fear from the elites and experts and b) we won't be getting out country back.
It's two way... I genuinely don't know what will convince me that brexit is and will be a good idea. I suppose the total collapse of the EU which gets submerged into our new, expansive British empire... That an blue passports
I'm a bit concerned that, with this week's Parliamentary developments, the White Paper, the comments of Theresa May (expected today in Belfast) about the EU suggestions for the backstop, and Dominic Raab returning to the idea of not paying the agreed withdrawal sum if there is no trade deal, signs of progress are in short supply (if not non-existent).
Instead, it seems as if the Government is fixated on revisiting those elements of the withdrawal negotiations sufficiently agreed last December to allow for progress from Phase One of the negotiations.
For some reason, I can't see this ending happily, even with Dominic Raab's intensive negotiations (which may clash with minor things like holidays/leave for key personnel, with the Parliamentary recess and the Commission's tendency to virtually shut down in August [neither of which will be a surprise and will have been factored in to the original talks timetable], to say nothing of party conferences), I honestly think things have gone backwards and a no exit deal, no transition period and no trade deal looks more likely now than two weeks ago.
Just as an aside, the Irish Government announced it will be hiring an additional 1,000 Customs and veterinary staff to cope with Brexit. Whilst it was also stated that they were not for deployment on the Border, I'm inclined to believe that the overall numbers would be more than would be needed for ports and airports alone (even if not enough for full monitoring of the Border) and that the mention of vets is telling.
I'm no more than guessing, but the numbers mentioned could very well align with formal Customs posts having to be reintroduced on major routes, allied with mobile Customs units patrolling other crossings.
Obviously, if my interpretation is correct, this would be only a starting point, the numbers involved could well increase, but Ireland has to prepare for a disorderly, no deal Brexit.
The worrying thing is that HMG needs to have similar plans in place, and recruitment at least announced, or it risks not being ready.
Equally worrying is that, after last week's "disturbances" on the Bogside and heightened tensions over bonfires, I'd be more concerned about possible dissident Republican attacks than I was before, even having listened to the view if the express in PSNI.
Well bugger me sideways, it turns out the Tory Chief Whip deliberately tried to break up the pairing arrangements for the main vote this week...who knew eh!
I hope the DUP are getting used to the idea of not seeing their families as much, because the chances of getting any cooperation with pairing out of the opposition are going to be interesting now.
This unspeakably unpleasant front page from the disgraced and disgraceful Sun (owned by an immigrant) has drawn a lot of criticism and a lot of questions, over and above "can you guess what his age is?", including: 1. Who is the picture of? 2. Do we know that it's someone that is claiming to be a child, as the caption says? 3. Why have The Sun printed a picture of someone without their agreement on the front page of their newspaper, in the knowledge that it's illegal to do so if they are under 18? 4. How young does a refugee have to be, to be treated with fairness and compassion? 5. How good does it make The Sun's readers feel when they see a foreign person they can look down on?
1. Someone who was brought to the UK by the charity Citizen UK. A charity set up to rescue children from war zones.
2. Yes. He would have made that claim to citizen UK.
3. Under UK he is welcome to pursue the sun in court.
4. If there is a war on. Running away and pretending to b a child is coeardice. War is a tough nasty business. I was once told to fight a war in the middle East or go to prison.
5. The story was highlighting the failure of the Dubbs act.
Interesting that so many don't want to guess the man's age.
This unspeakably unpleasant front page from the disgraced and disgraceful Sun (owned by an immigrant) has drawn a lot of criticism and a lot of questions, over and above "can you guess what his age is?", including: 1. Who is the picture of? 2. Do we know that it's someone that is claiming to be a child, as the caption says? 3. Why have The Sun printed a picture of someone without their agreement on the front page of their newspaper, in the knowledge that it's illegal to do so if they are under 18? 4. How young does a refugee have to be, to be treated with fairness and compassion? 5. How good does it make The Sun's readers feel when they see a foreign person they can look down on?
1. Someone who was brought to the UK by the charity Citizen UK. A charity set up to rescue children from war zones.
2. Yes. He would have made that claim to citizen UK.
3. Under UK he is welcome to pursue the sun in court.
4. If there is a war on. Running away and pretending to b a child is coeardice. War is a tough nasty business. I was once told to fight a war in the middle East or go to prison.
5. The story was highlighting the failure of the Dubbs act.
Interesting that so many don't want to guess the man's age.
I'm a bit concerned that, with this week's Parliamentary developments, the White Paper, the comments of Theresa May (expected today in Belfast) about the EU suggestions for the backstop, and Dominic Raab returning to the idea of not paying the agreed withdrawal sum if there is no trade deal, signs of progress are in short supply (if not non-existent).
Instead, it seems as if the Government is fixated on revisiting those elements of the withdrawal negotiations sufficiently agreed last December to allow for progress from Phase One of the negotiations.
For some reason, I can't see this ending happily, even with Dominic Raab's intensive negotiations (which may clash with minor things like holidays/leave for key personnel, with the Parliamentary recess and the Commission's tendency to virtually shut down in August [neither of which will be a surprise and will have been factored in to the original talks timetable], to say nothing of party conferences), I honestly think things have gone backwards and a no exit deal, no transition period and no trade deal looks more likely now than two weeks ago.
Just as an aside, the Irish Government announced it will be hiring an additional 1,000 Customs and veterinary staff to cope with Brexit. Whilst it was also stated that they were not for deployment on the Border, I'm inclined to believe that the overall numbers would be more than would be needed for ports and airports alone (even if not enough for full monitoring of the Border) and that the mention of vets is telling.
I'm no more than guessing, but the numbers mentioned could very well align with formal Customs posts having to be reintroduced on major routes, allied with mobile Customs units patrolling other crossings.
Obviously, if my interpretation is correct, this would be only a starting point, the numbers involved could well increase, but Ireland has to prepare for a disorderly, no deal Brexit.
The worrying thing is that HMG needs to have similar plans in place, and recruitment at least announced, or it risks not being ready.
Equally worrying is that, after last week's "disturbances" on the Bogside and heightened tensions over bonfires, I'd be more concerned about possible dissident Republican attacks than I was before, even having listened to the view if the express in PSNI.
Channel 4 news last night had a very interesting piece on all the different paramilitaries in NI. Very interesting, and slightly worrying, informative for people on the mainland.
Do you know how much 1,000 customs staff are as a proportion of totals?
I am convinced that Brexit will now either be a proper Brexit, or will not be Brexit at all. As you say, phase one issues are being brought up again. No further forward than when article 50 was triggered.
The irony is that if Theresa May had a healthy majority, there would be a stronger chance of a "soft" Brexit in my opinion. The irony is also that if the European Union weren't so intransigent on things like the Irish border and customs into France etc, there would also be more chance of a soft Brexit. As someone who deals with exporting several million pounds worth of goods into both the EU and outside EU each year, I do believe that if there were the will on both sides, a solution could be found. Some would say why would they have to co-operate, and that's fair enough, but it's moving Britain to possibly take a decision that could damage all of our economies. I do think the EU aren't entirely blameless in all of this...
I can't believe they are all going off on holiday, things have been on a knife edge for the last few weeks. And what's May's response? I'm in trouble politically, so let's see if we can get everyone to go on holiday early. Coward. That's party over country, pure and simple.
I am still of the view that we need a general election with remain manifestos on both main parties. I think that is the way that would upset the least people when it comes to overturning the referendum.
I respectfully disagree with comments here that suggest a referendum is definitely right etc. In that case, when are we bringing back the death penalty? What happens if in a snapshot in time the majority of people want Brexit again? Do we then have to have another referendum? I really don't mean to be rude but it does make me cringe a bit at the mental gymnastics some will go through to get to the conclusion that it is democratic. This is all down to opinions as well, so there's no point getting angry with me and arguing about it. It comes down to how we view democracy.
I am firmly of the opinion having spoken to quite a few people, that a lot of borderline remainers would vote leave if there was a rerun or not bother to vote because of their views on democracy, with myself possibly being one of them. Again, this might not be the right thing to do in your opinion, but it is in theirs. The most dangerous thing in a second referendum would be leave winning, and I'm sure we can all agree that it wouldn't be a remain landslide based on polls. If leave win for a second time, although I am sure some on here would have the front to claim we need a third, fourth and fifth referendum etc until we get the answer we want, that there would be a full mandate for a full on out Brexit, which would be devastating.
It has to be a general election, I don't even think remain would win a second referendum as easily as many would think. I don't disagree that more than 50% would prefer to remain, but I don't think that would necessarily translate in the polls.
This unspeakably unpleasant front page from the disgraced and disgraceful Sun (owned by an immigrant) has drawn a lot of criticism and a lot of questions, over and above "can you guess what his age is?", including: 1. Who is the picture of? 2. Do we know that it's someone that is claiming to be a child, as the caption says? 3. Why have The Sun printed a picture of someone without their agreement on the front page of their newspaper, in the knowledge that it's illegal to do so if they are under 18? 4. How young does a refugee have to be, to be treated with fairness and compassion? 5. How good does it make The Sun's readers feel when they see a foreign person they can look down on?
1. Someone who was brought to the UK by the charity Citizen UK. A charity set up to rescue children from war zones.
2. Yes. He would have made that claim to citizen UK.
3. Under UK he is welcome to pursue the sun in court.
4. If there is a war on. Running away and pretending to b a child is coeardice. War is a tough nasty business. I was once told to fight a war in the middle East or go to prison.
5. The story was highlighting the failure of the Dubbs act.
Interesting that so many don't want to guess the man's age.
Oh there are plenty of people prepared to guess this person's age, including the editor of the Sun at the time, who used an app to do so. Instead of reporting facts. Like the person's name, background and, importantly, age.
And that's the point I was highlighting. None of the facts about this person is known.
But, more important even than the extent to which the Sun was reporting the truth with their vile front page, and possibly more important, even than whether the Sun was breaking the law by publishing the photo, was what it says about its intention and the effect it has on its readers.
What is this country becoming when a popular newspaper engenders hate and anger at the sight of a refugee fleeing a war zone because he might be older than he claims? It's yet another disgusting example of how a group of influencers (including newspapers and political leaders) are making it acceptable for inadequate people to look at their own lives and, instead of questioning the decisions they have made, blame brown foreigners.
This unspeakably unpleasant front page from the disgraced and disgraceful Sun (owned by an immigrant) has drawn a lot of criticism and a lot of questions, over and above "can you guess what his age is?", including: 1. Who is the picture of? 2. Do we know that it's someone that is claiming to be a child, as the caption says? 3. Why have The Sun printed a picture of someone without their agreement on the front page of their newspaper, in the knowledge that it's illegal to do so if they are under 18? 4. How young does a refugee have to be, to be treated with fairness and compassion? 5. How good does it make The Sun's readers feel when they see a foreign person they can look down on?
1. Someone who was brought to the UK by the charity Citizen UK. A charity set up to rescue children from war zones.
2. Yes. He would have made that claim to citizen UK.
3. Under UK he is welcome to pursue the sun in court.
4. If there is a war on. Running away and pretending to b a child is coeardice. War is a tough nasty business. I was once told to fight a war in the middle East or go to prison.
5. The story was highlighting the failure of the Dubbs act.
Interesting that so many don't want to guess the man's age.
What on earth are you talking about? If he is as old as you are happy to accept the Sun telling you, he might be a fork lift truck driver, caught up in a "war" that has nothing to do with him, other than two groups of egomaniacs have chosen to fight it in his back yard? Why are you assuming he is a soldier? Were you working in a bookies and suddenly someone rushed in and told you "here, grab this rifle and push off to Kuwait or we are going to arrest you."?
And as for point 2 - that's no answer at all, that's just your assumption.
But has anybody got an idea quite how Justine Greening's "In, out, shake it all about" three-choice referendum would actually work in practice?
What would happen if we ended up with a 34%, 34%, 32% result? Would we go again with the two 34% choices or would the 32% people have a 2nd preference? (Or is she being sneaky and is hoping the "In" would still be around the 50% mark and the other two choices would split the "out" vote? Thus giving a clear "in" mandate?)
If it was a 2nd preference concept then "in" vote would still lose because the "outs" would not have that as their second choice.
Comments
If the politicians don't understand it then it seems unlikely that most of the population will either. Hearing some idiot say 'I want my country back' as a reason for voting Brexit and then being unable to explain what they mean by that doesn't suggest a high level of debate.
If we end up with a 'no deal' Brexit and the economy is royally shafted then I'm assuming those who voted Remain will still get the blame for it.
We are governed by incompetent fools as the whole Brexit process has proved - they don't have a clue and won't work together.
Fact is, they've done they whole thing arse backwards. There should have been an independent commission to come up with options for Brexit, then put that to a vote. Not rely on politicians tell lies about impending disasters or bundles of extra cash for NHS, then figure it all out later.
It's an absolute fucking mess however you voted in the referendum. If we end up with a 'no deal' situation by default because our politicians are too useless to agree on a plan I'm unclear how the UK can have a rosy future.
I may be missing something but I'm unclear how we will benefit if no planning takes place. Are we just supposed to keep our fingers crossed and hope everything will be okay?
Is anybody on here genuinely confident?
David Cameron called the referendum because his party was unable to come to a consensus on EU membership. The referendum was promised, and delivered, in order to ensure that the Conservative party would be brought together, with europhiles and eurosceptics within the party ensuring that they worked together for the good of the party, the government and. most of all, the country. And with this consensus and collegiate thinking, the country would be well-managed, better off and with a clear and distinct path forwards to a prosperous future.
And, as David Cameron always thought things through very clearly, that must be what's happening. Right?
1. Who is the picture of?
2. Do we know that it's someone that is claiming to be a child, as the caption says?
3. Why have The Sun printed a picture of someone without their agreement on the front page of their newspaper, in the knowledge that it's illegal to do so if they are under 18?
4. How young does a refugee have to be, to be treated with fairness and compassion?
5. How good does it make The Sun's readers feel when they see a foreign person they can look down on?
Hard Brexit/No Deal means hard Irish border or WTO tariffs and economic sanctions.
It's two way... I genuinely don't know what will convince me that brexit is and will be a good idea. I suppose the total collapse of the EU which gets submerged into our new, expansive British empire... That an blue passports
Instead, it seems as if the Government is fixated on revisiting those elements of the withdrawal negotiations sufficiently agreed last December to allow for progress from Phase One of the negotiations.
For some reason, I can't see this ending happily, even with Dominic Raab's intensive negotiations (which may clash with minor things like holidays/leave for key personnel, with the Parliamentary recess and the Commission's tendency to virtually shut down in August [neither of which will be a surprise and will have been factored in to the original talks timetable], to say nothing of party conferences), I honestly think things have gone backwards and a no exit deal, no transition period and no trade deal looks more likely now than two weeks ago.
Just as an aside, the Irish Government announced it will be hiring an additional 1,000 Customs and veterinary staff to cope with Brexit. Whilst it was also stated that they were not for deployment on the Border, I'm inclined to believe that the overall numbers would be more than would be needed for ports and airports alone (even if not enough for full monitoring of the Border) and that the mention of vets is telling.
I'm no more than guessing, but the numbers mentioned could very well align with formal Customs posts having to be reintroduced on major routes, allied with mobile Customs units patrolling other crossings.
Obviously, if my interpretation is correct, this would be only a starting point, the numbers involved could well increase, but Ireland has to prepare for a disorderly, no deal Brexit.
The worrying thing is that HMG needs to have similar plans in place, and recruitment at least announced, or it risks not being ready.
Equally worrying is that, after last week's "disturbances" on the Bogside and heightened tensions over bonfires, I'd be more concerned about possible dissident Republican attacks than I was before, even having listened to the view if the express in PSNI.
itv.com/news/2018-07-19/chief-whip-julian-smith-cannot-keep-his-job-say-tory-mps/
I hope the DUP are getting used to the idea of not seeing their families as much, because the chances of getting any cooperation with pairing out of the opposition are going to be interesting now.
2. Yes. He would have made that claim to citizen UK.
3. Under UK he is welcome to pursue the sun in court.
4. If there is a war on. Running away and pretending to b a child is coeardice.
War is a tough nasty business. I was once told to fight a war in the middle East or go to prison.
5. The story was highlighting the failure of the Dubbs act.
Interesting that so many don't want to guess the man's age.
Do you know how much 1,000 customs staff are as a proportion of totals?
I am convinced that Brexit will now either be a proper Brexit, or will not be Brexit at all. As you say, phase one issues are being brought up again. No further forward than when article 50 was triggered.
The irony is that if Theresa May had a healthy majority, there would be a stronger chance of a "soft" Brexit in my opinion. The irony is also that if the European Union weren't so intransigent on things like the Irish border and customs into France etc, there would also be more chance of a soft Brexit. As someone who deals with exporting several million pounds worth of goods into both the EU and outside EU each year, I do believe that if there were the will on both sides, a solution could be found. Some would say why would they have to co-operate, and that's fair enough, but it's moving Britain to possibly take a decision that could damage all of our economies. I do think the EU aren't entirely blameless in all of this...
I can't believe they are all going off on holiday, things have been on a knife edge for the last few weeks. And what's May's response? I'm in trouble politically, so let's see if we can get everyone to go on holiday early. Coward. That's party over country, pure and simple.
I am still of the view that we need a general election with remain manifestos on both main parties. I think that is the way that would upset the least people when it comes to overturning the referendum.
I respectfully disagree with comments here that suggest a referendum is definitely right etc. In that case, when are we bringing back the death penalty? What happens if in a snapshot in time the majority of people want Brexit again? Do we then have to have another referendum? I really don't mean to be rude but it does make me cringe a bit at the mental gymnastics some will go through to get to the conclusion that it is democratic. This is all down to opinions as well, so there's no point getting angry with me and arguing about it. It comes down to how we view democracy.
I am firmly of the opinion having spoken to quite a few people, that a lot of borderline remainers would vote leave if there was a rerun or not bother to vote because of their views on democracy, with myself possibly being one of them. Again, this might not be the right thing to do in your opinion, but it is in theirs. The most dangerous thing in a second referendum would be leave winning, and I'm sure we can all agree that it wouldn't be a remain landslide based on polls. If leave win for a second time, although I am sure some on here would have the front to claim we need a third, fourth and fifth referendum etc until we get the answer we want, that there would be a full mandate for a full on out Brexit, which would be devastating.
It has to be a general election, I don't even think remain would win a second referendum as easily as many would think. I don't disagree that more than 50% would prefer to remain, but I don't think that would necessarily translate in the polls.
And that's the point I was highlighting. None of the facts about this person is known.
But, more important even than the extent to which the Sun was reporting the truth with their vile front page, and possibly more important, even than whether the Sun was breaking the law by publishing the photo, was what it says about its intention and the effect it has on its readers.
What is this country becoming when a popular newspaper engenders hate and anger at the sight of a refugee fleeing a war zone because he might be older than he claims? It's yet another disgusting example of how a group of influencers (including newspapers and political leaders) are making it acceptable for inadequate people to look at their own lives and, instead of questioning the decisions they have made, blame brown foreigners.
And as for point 2 - that's no answer at all, that's just your assumption.
But has anybody got an idea quite how Justine Greening's "In, out, shake it all about" three-choice referendum would actually work in practice?
What would happen if we ended up with a 34%, 34%, 32% result? Would we go again with the two 34% choices or would the 32% people have a 2nd preference? (Or is she being sneaky and is hoping the "In" would still be around the 50% mark and the other two choices would split the "out" vote? Thus giving a clear "in" mandate?)
If it was a 2nd preference concept then "in" vote would still lose because the "outs" would not have that as their second choice.
It all sounds worse than the original fiasco.