I think there would be worldwide acceptance of the State of Israel if it returned to its environs as defined by the two UN resolutions. Many of Corbyn's critics want not only acceptance of the borders as they exist now but reserve the right to expand further using armed supremacy. They also want to stiffle any criticism of Israel, hence the 11 appendixes linked to IHRA, 7 of which hamstring any slanging of this incidious regime.
Nonsense.
Nothing in the full IHRA definition hamstrings criticism the actions of Israel.
That has been explained again and again but the Corbynistas can't accept that because Corbyn and most of his cronies would fall foul of the definition.
Meanwhile, Brexit continues almost unopposed by Labour and May gets an easy ride from the so called opposition.
Bollocks they are so vague. Treat them differently from a similar country in a similar situation and other crap. Eg if they shoot 100s of protesters and another country shoots 2, are we supposed to treat them the same? All about context.
But wasn't the IHRA definition adopted in full and is now Labour Party policy? I thought the only difference was that one of the examples had been changed and extended to make it legally applicable. Also some additional stuff was added as legal text so that people who broke the rules could be sacked/expelled as previously the definition could be challenged under free speech that trumps it as a higher law. An all party commons home affairs committee had the same misgivings in 2016.
Why do people always post links... At the end of the day its just another persons view, so including yours that's two people out of a world wide population of billions.
Further to that, and i suspect this often happens the view is plagiarised and the link posted to back up ones rhetoric.
Quite often links are posted from the same individual who seems to have a multitude of views, so hardly an expert. Yet followers hail this so called experts view.
Brexiteers like Boris, JRM and others arrogantly assume that 100% of the 51.9% voted for a hard or no Brexit, despite them and many of the leavers promising we could leave and stay in Customs Union. Hence leaving without a soft option or stay would be against the will of the people.
This is the obvious point purposely missed by politicians going on about the will of the people. It is pretty safe to say that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one, but it is also clear that a percentage of leavers would have wanted a soft Brexit. Polls since the vote bear this out, and the figures are too large to dismiss that the soft option is the will of the people.
Of course our democratic system is all about ignoring the will of the people so it is the instinct of politicians to totally ignore the preference of those who voted remain as if they don't exist. I'm sure most brexiters, beyond any doubt, wanted a hard brexit but that is only relevant if you are intent on ignoring the will of the people and ignoring everybody else.
The fact is the preference is clearly for a Norway type arrangement, and if you allow for margin of errors in polls, it is pretty clear the difference is too high for this not to be the case. I think this is yet another deceipt from hard leave politicians and this country will be divided for many years to come if a hard Brexit is forced on us!
The ballot paper merely asked voters if they wanted to 'Leave the European Union' - there was no discussion of how this was to be done and I don't remember any debate re hard or soft Brexit. I'm assuming voters thought it was a simple process and that all the planning was in place.
No need to read anymore. This in a nutshell for me.
I've said many times on here there was just a simple Yes / No on the ballot paper with no hard, soft or crispy around the edge options. I assumed (along with quite a few others I would imagine) that the Governnent had looked into what "to leave the EU" meant & that it was, in fact, possible. I didn't expect the day after for the PM to open a drawer & take out a folder marked " instructions on how to leave the EU".....for it seems its what Cameron left TM to do.
It will take a heck of a long time before I vote Tory again. Certainly wont be voting Labour.....and as the Lib Dems want us to stay its either UKIP or an Independent / monster raving loony party.
I think there would be worldwide acceptance of the State of Israel if it returned to its environs as defined by the two UN resolutions. Many of Corbyn's critics want not only acceptance of the borders as they exist now but reserve the right to expand further using armed supremacy. They also want to stiffle any criticism of Israel, hence the 11 appendixes linked to IHRA, 7 of which hamstring any slanging of this incidious regime.
Nonsense.
Nothing in the full IHRA definition hamstrings criticism the actions of Israel.
That has been explained again and again but the Corbynistas can't accept that because Corbyn and most of his cronies would fall foul of the definition.
Meanwhile, Brexit continues almost unopposed by Labour and May gets an easy ride from the so called opposition.
Bollocks they are so vague. Treat them differently from a similar country in a similar situation and other crap. Eg if they shoot 100s of protesters and another country shoots 2, are we supposed to treat them the same? All about context.
But wasn't the IHRA definition adopted in full and is now Labour Party policy? I thought the only difference was that one of the examples had been changed and extended to make it legally applicable. Also some additional stuff was added as legal text so that people who broke the rules could be sacked/expelled as previously the definition could be challenged under free speech that trumps it as a higher law. An all party commons home affairs committee had the same misgivings in 2016.
In red near the end of the article. I can't vouch for evolve politics but C4 are pretty mainstream.
The labour haven't adopted the IHRA definition, they have decided to make up their own definition that won't incriminate their antisemitic leadership.
No. They have chosen to adopt a defenition of Anti-semetism that allows them to criticise Israel.
Racism by defenition is having negative opinions based on race, not a country, Israel, who now have their own racism against Palestinian muslims enshrined in law. I might hate the French. It would make me a bigot but not a racist because they are Heinz 57 there.
Why do people always post links... At the end of the day its just another persons view, so including yours that's two people out of a world wide population of billions.
Further to that, and i suspect this often happens the view is plagiarised and the link posted to back up ones rhetoric.
Quite often links are posted from the same individual who seems to have a multitude of views, so hardly an expert. Yet followers hail this so called experts view.
For a whole number of possible reasons, I guess:
1. Because the original writer has said it more eloquently than followers might. 2. To get one step nearer the original source of the argument. 3. So that the original person gets credit for the ideas presented. 4. To save time and effort re-writing something that already stands up in its own right. 5. Additional kudos for the argument if it's come from a pre-published source. 6. If the original was written by someone noteworthy due to the position they hold, the experience they have or the esteem that they're held in, it may seem more influential than if it's re-written by Barry from Blackheath or Dave for Dartford. 7. It's always best practice academically to name your sources, but of course as a PhD alumni, you don't need anyone to tell you that.
The big question for me is why would anyone care about links being posted? Nobody's passing it of as their own work. We're just getting a better quality argument. So what's the problem?
Brexiteers like Boris, JRM and others arrogantly assume that 100% of the 51.9% voted for a hard or no Brexit, despite them and many of the leavers promising we could leave and stay in Customs Union. Hence leaving without a soft option or stay would be against the will of the people.
This is the obvious point purposely missed by politicians going on about the will of the people. It is pretty safe to say that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one, but it is also clear that a percentage of leavers would have wanted a soft Brexit. Polls since the vote bear this out, and the figures are too large to dismiss that the soft option is the will of the people.
Of course our democratic system is all about ignoring the will of the people so it is the instinct of politicians to totally ignore the preference of those who voted remain as if they don't exist. I'm sure most brexiters, beyond any doubt, wanted a hard brexit but that is only relevant if you are intent on ignoring the will of the people and ignoring everybody else.
The fact is the preference is clearly for a Norway type arrangement, and if you allow for margin of errors in polls, it is pretty clear the difference is too high for this not to be the case. I think this is yet another deceipt from hard leave politicians and this country will be divided for many years to come if a hard Brexit is forced on us!
The ballot paper merely asked voters if they wanted to 'Leave the European Union' - there was no discussion of how this was to be done and I don't remember any debate re hard or soft Brexit. I'm assuming voters thought it was a simple process and that all the planning was in place.
No need to read anymore. This in a nutshell for me.
I've said many times on here there was just a simple Yes / No on the ballot paper with no hard, soft or crispy around the edge options. I assumed (along with quite a few others I would imagine) that the Governnent had looked into what "to leave the EU" meant & that it was, in fact, possible. I didn't expect the day after for the PM to open a drawer & take out a folder marked " instructions on how to leave the EU".....for it seems its what Cameron left TM to do.
It will take a heck of a long time before I vote Tory again. Certainly wont be voting Labour.....and as the Lib Dems want us to stay its either UKIP or an Independent / monster raving loony party.
As the old saying goes, "Assumption is the Mother of all fuck ups."
First of all, the government did not plan on leaving the European Union, they campaigned to stay in it but lost.
It was incumbent on Farage, Johnson et al to explain HOW they were going to leave the EU and untangle 40 years of complex trade deals in about two years once Article 50 was invoked.
From what I could see they never explained how they would do it at all, just spouted a whole bunch of bullshit about how easy it would be and how the NHS was going to get 350 million extra quid per week once the UK left the EU and just enough people fell for it.
Of course, the problem is that they now have to deliver the undeliverable and reality is going to hit them - and the UK as a whole - square in the bollocks come next March.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the EU themselves are determined to make an example of the UK to prevent anyone else from trying to break off in the future.
So, the UK has two options, take the hard Brexit and suffer horrendous economic and political shock or, go to the EU with its tail between its legs and beg to be taken back into the fold and admit the whole things was a complete debacle.
The EU are clearly not that interested in a compromise option and you can't really blame them as it doesn't really benefit them to offer it.
Why do people always post links... At the end of the day its just another persons view, so including yours that's two people out of a world wide population of billions.
Further to that, and i suspect this often happens the view is plagiarised and the link posted to back up ones rhetoric.
Quite often links are posted from the same individual who seems to have a multitude of views, so hardly an expert. Yet followers hail this so called experts view.
Yes, why do people try to widen their knowledge and become better informed? Just have a view and stick to it. Reading the views of others who may be better qualified on a subject to help formulate or challenge your view is ridiculous!
We’re reaching an interesting phase of Brexit now. Lots of scenarios being suggested and as a staunch remainer I cling to the hope that Brexit is reversed.
However. I’m beginning to think that scenario is now more likely under Teresa May and the conservatives than if she was forced to call a general election as a result of a vote of no confidence as per the posts above and the result meant that Corbyn came to power. Corbyn is a brexiteer. He just hasn’t got the courage to say it. That tells me all I need to know about the man and the reason I can’t vote for him.
i think corbyn's done now after all this anti semitism
Labour has a problem with bigoted cranks in the party but when you find yourself actually saying this, the right-wing media have done a full number on you
Labour voter all my life. Trust me there is nothing that the media could do to influence my views.
My opinion of Corbyn is based upon what I see of the man and based upon his policies.
Brexit is the single biggest crisis this country has faced since the end of the Second World War. I wanted Labour to come out and be fully opposed to leaving the eu. I understand given the referendum demographic that was always going to be difficult but Corbyn didn’t campaign to remain and has shown me precious little to make me think he is anything other than a complete brexiteer. He wants the Tories to complete Brexit and then hopes to pick up the pieces. In my view he is a coward, a hypocrite and untrustworthy.
The quality of his front bench is frighteningly abysmal with the odd exception. His power base of a Unite and Momentum have a stranglehold on the party and centre left moderates are being squeezed and bullied.
I have a good local MP in Clive Efford but at the moment I’m struggling to even give him my support.
Never said this before but my vote is up for grabs to whatever party looks like getting Brexit scrapped or minimises the impact of leaving.
So, Lib dems then. No realistic chance, but better than any other group. If enough remainers woke up to consistent Brexit Lib Dem policy instead of buying the media hype against them,we would at least be on the way to remaining.
Brexiteers like Boris, JRM and others arrogantly assume that 100% of the 51.9% voted for a hard or no Brexit, despite them and many of the leavers promising we could leave and stay in Customs Union. Hence leaving without a soft option or stay would be against the will of the people.
This is the obvious point purposely missed by politicians going on about the will of the people. It is pretty safe to say that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one, but it is also clear that a percentage of leavers would have wanted a soft Brexit. Polls since the vote bear this out, and the figures are too large to dismiss that the soft option is the will of the people.
Of course our democratic system is all about ignoring the will of the people so it is the instinct of politicians to totally ignore the preference of those who voted remain as if they don't exist. I'm sure most brexiters, beyond any doubt, wanted a hard brexit but that is only relevant if you are intent on ignoring the will of the people and ignoring everybody else.
The fact is the preference is clearly for a Norway type arrangement, and if you allow for margin of errors in polls, it is pretty clear the difference is too high for this not to be the case. I think this is yet another deceipt from hard leave politicians and this country will be divided for many years to come if a hard Brexit is forced on us!
The ballot paper merely asked voters if they wanted to 'Leave the European Union' - there was no discussion of how this was to be done and I don't remember any debate re hard or soft Brexit. I'm assuming voters thought it was a simple process and that all the planning was in place.
No need to read anymore. This in a nutshell for me.
I've said many times on here there was just a simple Yes / No on the ballot paper with no hard, soft or crispy around the edge options. I assumed (along with quite a few others I would imagine) that the Governnent had looked into what "to leave the EU" meant & that it was, in fact, possible. I didn't expect the day after for the PM to open a drawer & take out a folder marked " instructions on how to leave the EU".....for it seems its what Cameron left TM to do.
It will take a heck of a long time before I vote Tory again. Certainly wont be voting Labour.....and as the Lib Dems want us to stay its either UKIP or an Independent / monster raving loony party.
As the old saying goes, "Assumption is the Mother of all fuck ups."
First of all, the government did not plan on leaving the European Union, they campaigned to stay in it but lost.
It was incumbent on Farage, Johnson et al to explain HOW they were going to leave the EU and untangle 40 years of complex trade deals in about two years once Article 50 was invoked.
From what I could see they never explained how they would do it at all, just spouted a whole bunch of bullshit about how easy it would be and how the NHS was going to get 350 million extra quid per week once the UK left the EU and just enough people fell for it.
Of course, the problem is that they now have to deliver the undeliverable and reality is going to hit them - and the UK as a whole - square in the bollocks come next March.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the EU themselves are determined to make an example of the UK to prevent anyone else from trying to break off in the future.
So, the UK has two options, take the hard Brexit and suffer horrendous economic and political shock or, go to the EU with its tail between its legs and beg to be taken back into the fold and admit the whole things was a complete debacle.
The EU are clearly not that interested in a compromise option and you can't really blame them as it doesn't really benefit them to offer it.
To be fair the “once article 50 was invoked” bit is key. Having two years after A50 is triggered is fine if you kind of know what you’re doing. May randomly triggering it before having any clue what would come next is the biggest mistake she has made (in a very long lost) in this entire national embarrassment.
The fact that she hasn't been taken to task on it, is an indictment of how broken our system is. Now here is something we can criticise Corbyn for, but he is not the only one.
Brexit-backing Conservative MP Peter Bone was dismissive of Mr Carney's message, describing his remarks as "just another example of the ongoing Project Fear campaign".
Anyway, getting back on topic having heard Mark Carney on Today it's clear that at least the BoE has put some effort into planning for Brexit even if the government hasn't a clue what it's doing. He was very measured, not the hysterical fear monger some want to portray him as and made a number of things clear, incuding that the economy has already taken a hit due to Brexit.
The fact that she hasn't been taken to task on it, is an indictment of how broken our system is. Now here is something we can criticise Corbyn for, but he is not the only one.
I still don't understand why people expect Corbyn to oppose something he agrees with, he's a Brexiteer.
The fact that she hasn't been taken to task on it, is an indictment of how broken our system is. Now here is something we can criticise Corbyn for, but he is not the only one.
I still don't understand why people expect Corbyn to oppose something he agrees with, he's a Brexiteer.
another SMEAR(tm). Corbyn is a genius, he's got it exactly planned out and is just calling the bluff of the nasty nasty SCUM(tm) party.
Brexiteers like Boris, JRM and others arrogantly assume that 100% of the 51.9% voted for a hard or no Brexit, despite them and many of the leavers promising we could leave and stay in Customs Union. Hence leaving without a soft option or stay would be against the will of the people.
This is the obvious point purposely missed by politicians going on about the will of the people. It is pretty safe to say that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one, but it is also clear that a percentage of leavers would have wanted a soft Brexit. Polls since the vote bear this out, and the figures are too large to dismiss that the soft option is the will of the people.
Of course our democratic system is all about ignoring the will of the people so it is the instinct of politicians to totally ignore the preference of those who voted remain as if they don't exist. I'm sure most brexiters, beyond any doubt, wanted a hard brexit but that is only relevant if you are intent on ignoring the will of the people and ignoring everybody else.
The fact is the preference is clearly for a Norway type arrangement, and if you allow for margin of errors in polls, it is pretty clear the difference is too high for this not to be the case. I think this is yet another deceipt from hard leave politicians and this country will be divided for many years to come if a hard Brexit is forced on us!
The ballot paper merely asked voters if they wanted to 'Leave the European Union' - there was no discussion of how this was to be done and I don't remember any debate re hard or soft Brexit. I'm assuming voters thought it was a simple process and that all the planning was in place.
No need to read anymore. This in a nutshell for me.
I've said many times on here there was just a simple Yes / No on the ballot paper with no hard, soft or crispy around the edge options. I assumed (along with quite a few others I would imagine) that the Governnent had looked into what "to leave the EU" meant & that it was, in fact, possible. I didn't expect the day after for the PM to open a drawer & take out a folder marked " instructions on how to leave the EU".....for it seems its what Cameron left TM to do.
It will take a heck of a long time before I vote Tory again. Certainly wont be voting Labour.....and as the Lib Dems want us to stay its either UKIP or an Independent / monster raving loony party.
As the old saying goes, "Assumption is the Mother of all fuck ups."
First of all, the government did not plan on leaving the European Union, they campaigned to stay in it but lost.
It was incumbent on Farage, Johnson et al to explain HOW they were going to leave the EU and untangle 40 years of complex trade deals in about two years once Article 50 was invoked.
From what I could see they never explained how they would do it at all, just spouted a whole bunch of bullshit about how easy it would be and how the NHS was going to get 350 million extra quid per week once the UK left the EU and just enough people fell for it.
Of course, the problem is that they now have to deliver the undeliverable and reality is going to hit them - and the UK as a whole - square in the bollocks come next March.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the EU themselves are determined to make an example of the UK to prevent anyone else from trying to break off in the future.
So, the UK has two options, take the hard Brexit and suffer horrendous economic and political shock or, go to the EU with its tail between its legs and beg to be taken back into the fold and admit the whole things was a complete debacle.
The EU are clearly not that interested in a compromise option and you can't really blame them as it doesn't really benefit them to offer it.
To be fair the “once article 50 was invoked” bit is key. Having two years after A50 is triggered is fine if you kind of know what you’re doing. May randomly triggering it before having any clue what would come next is the biggest mistake she has made (in a very long lost) in this entire national embarrassment.
Invoking Article 50 before the election and when you have no clue how to negotiate your way out of the EU was unforgivable.
I think there would be worldwide acceptance of the State of Israel if it returned to its environs as defined by the two UN resolutions. Many of Corbyn's critics want not only acceptance of the borders as they exist now but reserve the right to expand further using armed supremacy. They also want to stiffle any criticism of Israel, hence the 11 appendixes linked to IHRA, 7 of which hamstring any slanging of this incidious regime.
Nonsense.
Nothing in the full IHRA definition hamstrings criticism the actions of Israel.
That has been explained again and again but the Corbynistas can't accept that because Corbyn and most of his cronies would fall foul of the definition.
Meanwhile, Brexit continues almost unopposed by Labour and May gets an easy ride from the so called opposition.
Bollocks they are so vague. Treat them differently from a similar country in a similar situation and other crap. Eg if they shoot 100s of protesters and another country shoots 2, are we supposed to treat them the same? All about context.
But wasn't the IHRA definition adopted in full and is now Labour Party policy? I thought the only difference was that one of the examples had been changed and extended to make it legally applicable. Also some additional stuff was added as legal text so that people who broke the rules could be sacked/expelled as previously the definition could be challenged under free speech that trumps it as a higher law. An all party commons home affairs committee had the same misgivings in 2016.
The fact that she hasn't been taken to task on it, is an indictment of how broken our system is. Now here is something we can criticise Corbyn for, but he is not the only one.
I still don't understand why people expect Corbyn to oppose something he agrees with, he's a Brexiteer.
another SMEAR(tm). Corbyn is a genius, he's got it exactly planned out and is just calling the bluff of the nasty nasty SCUM(tm) party.
You really think Corbyn believes in The EU? Ifso, you really need to do some more research.
The fact that she hasn't been taken to task on it, is an indictment of how broken our system is. Now here is something we can criticise Corbyn for, but he is not the only one.
I still don't understand why people expect Corbyn to oppose something he agrees with, he's a Brexiteer.
another SMEAR(tm). Corbyn is a genius, he's got it exactly planned out and is just calling the bluff of the nasty nasty SCUM(tm) party.
You really think Corbyn believes in The EU? Ifso, you really need to do some more research.
I think you have been wooshed, unless you are double wooshing.
The fact that she hasn't been taken to task on it, is an indictment of how broken our system is. Now here is something we can criticise Corbyn for, but he is not the only one.
I still don't understand why people expect Corbyn to oppose something he agrees with, he's a Brexiteer.
another SMEAR(tm). Corbyn is a genius, he's got it exactly planned out and is just calling the bluff of the nasty nasty SCUM(tm) party.
You really think Corbyn believes in The EU? Ifso, you really need to do some more research.
I think you have been wooshed, unless you are double wooshing.
Maybe I am, but I thought Kent was a Muttleyesque believer.
The fact that she hasn't been taken to task on it, is an indictment of how broken our system is. Now here is something we can criticise Corbyn for, but he is not the only one.
I still don't understand why people expect Corbyn to oppose something he agrees with, he's a Brexiteer.
Taken to task for triggering A50 with no plan A let alone plan B nor even agreement within her party.
The fact that she hasn't been taken to task on it, is an indictment of how broken our system is. Now here is something we can criticise Corbyn for, but he is not the only one.
I still don't understand why people expect Corbyn to oppose something he agrees with, he's a Brexiteer.
another SMEAR(tm). Corbyn is a genius, he's got it exactly planned out and is just calling the bluff of the nasty nasty SCUM(tm) party.
You really think Corbyn believes in The EU? Ifso, you really need to do some more research.
I think you have been wooshed, unless you are double wooshing.
Maybe I am, but I thought Kent was a Muttleyesque believer.
It's been a long week!
haha no i'm a big time corbyn, tory, brexit skeptic. A self loathing lib dem most likely.
The fact that she hasn't been taken to task on it, is an indictment of how broken our system is. Now here is something we can criticise Corbyn for, but he is not the only one.
I still don't understand why people expect Corbyn to oppose something he agrees with, he's a Brexiteer.
another SMEAR(tm). Corbyn is a genius, he's got it exactly planned out and is just calling the bluff of the nasty nasty SCUM(tm) party.
You really think Corbyn believes in The EU? Ifso, you really need to do some more research.
I think you have been wooshed, unless you are double wooshing.
Maybe I am, but I thought Kent was a Muttleyesque believer.
It's been a long week!
You couldn't be more wrong but I am working on him!
Anyway, getting back on topic having heard Mark Carney on Today it's clear that at least the BoE has put some effort into planning for Brexit even if the government hasn't a clue what it's doing. He was very measured, not the hysterical fear monger some want to portray him as and made a number of things clear, incuding that the economy has already taken a hit due to Brexit.
IMO, Carney is the best of the independent BoE governors we have had, and that he is leaving in a few months is for me another reason for concern about the UK's future direction. But who could blame him when he has to put up with the Cartoon Aristocrat slagging him off in his usual veiled racist terms.
There are those (including it seems the twat himself) who believe the Cartoon Aristocrat should himself be the next BoE governor. They are serious.
The shadow that hangs heavily over the LibDems is the tuition fee hike. I know somebody in work, past the threshold of earning enough to start repaying at the set level which he has done religiously, whose student debt at the end of the year was higher than at the beginning of the year. Seeing as we're also talking about the Bank of England. That student debt is set at a rate of 6.8%, more even than that bastard Duchatelet is charging Charlton in interest via Staprix. So even though the LibDems have basically a remainer stance, they have caused themselves a huge amount of damage over the fees backtrack.
The shadow that hangs heavily over the LibDems is the tuition fee hike. I know somebody in work, past the threshold of earning enough to start repaying at the set level which he has done religiously, whose student debt at the end of the year was higher than at the beginning of the year. Seeing as we're also talking about the Bank of England. That student debt is set at a rate of 6.8%, more even than that bastard Duchatelet is charging Charlton in interest via Staprix. So even though the LibDems have basically a remainer stance, they have caused themselves a huge amount of damage over the fees backtrack.
I think Vince Cable as the leader is more of a hindrance than the tuition fee u-turn.
Anyway, getting back on topic having heard Mark Carney on Today it's clear that at least the BoE has put some effort into planning for Brexit even if the government hasn't a clue what it's doing. He was very measured, not the hysterical fear monger some want to portray him as and made a number of things clear, incuding that the economy has already taken a hit due to Brexit.
IMO, Carney is the best of the independent BoE governors we have had, and that he is leaving in a few months is for me another reason for concern about the UK's future direction. But who could blame him when he has to put up with the Cartoon Aristocrat slagging him off in his usual veiled racist terms.
There are those (including it seems the twat himself) who believe the Cartoon Aristocrat should himself be the next BoE governor. They are serious.
Comments
Further to that, and i suspect this often happens the view is plagiarised and the link posted to back up ones rhetoric.
Quite often links are posted from the same individual who seems to have a multitude of views, so hardly an expert. Yet followers hail this so called experts view.
I've said many times on here there was just a simple Yes / No on the ballot paper with no hard, soft or crispy around the edge options. I assumed (along with quite a few others I would imagine) that the Governnent had looked into what "to leave the EU" meant & that it was, in fact, possible. I didn't expect the day after for the PM to open a drawer & take out a folder marked " instructions on how to leave the EU".....for it seems its what Cameron left TM to do.
It will take a heck of a long time before I vote Tory again. Certainly wont be voting Labour.....and as the Lib Dems want us to stay its either UKIP or an Independent / monster
raving loony party.
Racism by defenition is having negative opinions based on race, not a country, Israel, who now have their own racism against Palestinian muslims enshrined in law. I might hate the French. It would make me a bigot but not a racist because they are Heinz 57 there.
1. Because the original writer has said it more eloquently than followers might.
2. To get one step nearer the original source of the argument.
3. So that the original person gets credit for the ideas presented.
4. To save time and effort re-writing something that already stands up in its own right.
5. Additional kudos for the argument if it's come from a pre-published source.
6. If the original was written by someone noteworthy due to the position they hold, the experience they have or the esteem that they're held in, it may seem more influential than if it's re-written by Barry from Blackheath or Dave for Dartford.
7. It's always best practice academically to name your sources, but of course as a PhD alumni, you don't need anyone to tell you that.
The big question for me is why would anyone care about links being posted? Nobody's passing it of as their own work. We're just getting a better quality argument. So what's the problem?
First of all, the government did not plan on leaving the European Union, they campaigned to stay in it but lost.
It was incumbent on Farage, Johnson et al to explain HOW they were going to leave the EU and untangle 40 years of complex trade deals in about two years once Article 50 was invoked.
From what I could see they never explained how they would do it at all, just spouted a whole bunch of bullshit about how easy it would be and how the NHS was going to get 350 million extra quid per week once the UK left the EU and just enough people fell for it.
Of course, the problem is that they now have to deliver the undeliverable and reality is going to hit them - and the UK as a whole - square in the bollocks come next March.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the EU themselves are determined to make an example of the UK to prevent anyone else from trying to break off in the future.
So, the UK has two options, take the hard Brexit and suffer horrendous economic and political shock or, go to the EU with its tail between its legs and beg to be taken back into the fold and admit the whole things was a complete debacle.
The EU are clearly not that interested in a compromise option and you can't really blame them as it doesn't really benefit them to offer it.
No realistic chance, but better than any other group.
If enough remainers woke up to consistent Brexit Lib Dem policy instead of buying the media hype against them,we would at least be on the way to remaining.
Blue passports
Absolute madness.
Lol
Anyway, getting back on topic having heard Mark Carney on Today it's clear that at least the BoE has put some effort into planning for Brexit even if the government hasn't a clue what it's doing. He was very measured, not the hysterical fear monger some want to portray him as and made a number of things clear, incuding that the economy has already taken a hit due to Brexit.
None so blind...
Also we should keep this thread to Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/02/ukip-membership-surges-15-per-cent-in-a-month
It's been a long week!
Not really @kentaddick .
There are those (including it seems the twat himself) who believe the Cartoon Aristocrat should himself be the next BoE governor. They are serious.
I know somebody in work, past the threshold of earning enough to start repaying at the set level which he has done religiously, whose student debt at the end of the year was higher than at the beginning of the year. Seeing as we're also talking about the Bank of England. That student debt is set at a rate of 6.8%, more even than that bastard Duchatelet is charging Charlton in interest via Staprix.
So even though the LibDems have basically a remainer stance, they have caused themselves a huge amount of damage over the fees backtrack.