Promising input from Kate Andrews of IEA on This Week which seemed to get thumbs up from Portillo, Johnson and Neill. Issue of course is the border. When does the Catholic population project to outnumber the Prods?
Promising input from Kate Andrews of IEA on This Week which seemed to get thumbs up from Portillo, Johnson and Neill. Issue of course is the border. When does the Catholic population project to outnumber the Prods?
Historically there have been more Protestants than Catholics in Northern Ireland but both have always been present.
We don’t have census data for around the time of partition but looking at voting in elections (sadly usually along cultural lines) the split in 1921 was roughly two-thirds Protestant to one-third Catholic.
Fast forward to the 2011 census and 48% of NI residents say they are Protestant / brought up Protestant and 45% say they are Catholic / brought up Catholic. The Protestant figure is falling and the Catholic figure is rising so by now the two figures are probably equal.
So Northern Ireland is now a country with roughly equal numbers of people who’d call themselves Protestant and those who’d call themselves Catholic.
I’m sure with a bit of gerrymandering, they will hang on for a bit.
Until politicians are held legally responsible for the delusional promises they spout, there will be a trust issue amongst the electorate. There is no authenticity in politics anymore. I thought Corbyn was genuine when he first rose to the leadership heights, but he has proven to be the same as others who have lost their way, their morality. Clearing student debt, £350m a week for the NHS etc etc. Both sides unelectable, no truth from either side on Brexit. No respect for themselves, their duties or their employers. Awful.
Promising input from Kate Andrews of IEA on This Week which seemed to get thumbs up from Portillo, Johnson and Neill. Issue of course is the border. When does the Catholic population project to outnumber the Prods?
Historically there have been more Protestants than Catholics in Northern Ireland but both have always been present.
We don’t have census data for around the time of partition but looking at voting in elections (sadly usually along cultural lines) the split in 1921 was roughly two-thirds Protestant to one-third Catholic.
Fast forward to the 2011 census and 48% of NI residents say they are Protestant / brought up Protestant and 45% say they are Catholic / brought up Catholic. The Protestant figure is falling and the Catholic figure is rising so by now the two figures are probably equal.
So Northern Ireland is now a country with roughly equal numbers of people who’d call themselves Protestant and those who’d call themselves Catholic.
I’m sure with a bit of gerrymandering, they will hang on for a bit.
As if...
Mind you, there is an argument that the creation of Northern Ireland (when the threat of violence, we might say terrorism today, and that of the Army refusing to act against it, determined Government policy) was itself gerrymandering.
The Boundary Commission made recommendations in 2016 regarding changes in Northern Ireland, which would have seen the DUP lose a seat, the DUP objected, now, in an environment where the DUP are (at least vicariously) in power, the Boundary Commission's final proposal has the DUP gaining a seat.
Of course, Northern Ireland would never be defined by religious divide....
There has always been a proportion of Catholics (even moderate Nationalists) in Northern Ireland who have been generally content with the status quo - and would be unlikely, therefore, to seek a change - and this proportion may well have been increased as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. What the politics of Brexit have done is reintroduce the divisions that have bedevilled this place for much of the last 100 400 years. So it's very difficult to see how the mood is here now.
What I would say is that a genuinely economically damaging Brexit (and that is a far higher probability here) would be likely, in my opinion, to throw up all sorts of unforeseen and/or unwanted consequences - if we are lucky, it would be something like Protestants/moderate Unionists (and there have always been Irish Nationalist Protestants) favouring the idea of a United Ireland in an act of enlightened self-interest; but if not, we could see a rise in inter-communal tensions and violence.
Until politicians are held legally responsible for the delusional promises they spout, there will be a trust issue amongst the electorate. There is no authenticity in politics anymore. I thought Corbyn was genuine when he first rose to the leadership heights, but he has proven to be the same as others who have lost their way, their morality. Clearing student debt, £350m a week for the NHS etc etc. Both sides unelectable, no truth from either side on Brexit. No respect for themselves, their duties or their employers. Awful.
Politicians have always lied - It's just the size of the lies that varies. You can't hold politicians legally responsible for promises given that the future is uncertain.
The electorate need to become a bit more clued up about politics rather than taking everything as gospel.
Promising input from Kate Andrews of IEA on This Week which seemed to get thumbs up from Portillo, Johnson and Neill. Issue of course is the border. When does the Catholic population project to outnumber the Prods?
Historically there have been more Protestants than Catholics in Northern Ireland but both have always been present.
We don’t have census data for around the time of partition but looking at voting in elections (sadly usually along cultural lines) the split in 1921 was roughly two-thirds Protestant to one-third Catholic.
Fast forward to the 2011 census and 48% of NI residents say they are Protestant / brought up Protestant and 45% say they are Catholic / brought up Catholic. The Protestant figure is falling and the Catholic figure is rising so by now the two figures are probably equal.
So Northern Ireland is now a country with roughly equal numbers of people who’d call themselves Protestant and those who’d call themselves Catholic.
I’m sure with a bit of gerrymandering, they will hang on for a bit.
As if...
Mind you, there is an argument that the creation of Northern Ireland (when the threat of violence, we might say terrorism today, and that of the Army refusing to act against it, determined Government policy) was itself gerrymandering.
The Boundary Commission made recommendations in 2016 regarding changes in Northern Ireland, which would have seen the DUP lose a seat, the DUP objected, now, in an environment where the DUP are (at least vicariously) in power, the Boundary Commission's final proposal has the DUP gaining a seat.
Of course, Northern Ireland would never be defined by religious divide....
There has always been a proportion of Catholics (even moderate Nationalists) in Northern Ireland who have been generally content with the status quo - and would be unlikely, therefore, to seek a change - and this proportion may well have been increased as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. What the politics of Brexit have done is reintroduce the divisions that have bedevilled this place for much of the last 100 400 years. So it's very difficult to see how the mood is here now.
What I would say is that a genuinely economically damaging Brexit (and that is a far higher probability here) would be likely, in my opinion, to throw up all sorts of unforeseen and/or unwanted consequences - if we are lucky, it would be something like Protestants/moderate Unionists (and there have always been Irish Nationalist Protestants) favouring the idea of a United Ireland in an act of enlightened self-interest; but if not, we could see a rise in inter-communal tensions and violence.
And there speaks somebody more qualified than us to.
Norn. I have a vague memory from the times of the troubles that in certain elections for certain institutions people legitimately had more than one vote. People owning businesses for example. They were more likely to be from the Unionist persuasion and it skewed 'democracy' in the favour of the Unionist people. I might have this a bit wrong.
Norn. I have a vague memory from the times of the troubles that in certain elections for certain institutions people legitimately had more than one vote. People owning businesses for example. They were more likely to be from the Unionist persuasion and it skewed 'democracy' in the favour of the Unionist people. I might have this a bit wrong.
You're right, along with gerrymandering, there were a number of "quirks" associated with property qualifications in Northern Ireland, designed to ensure an enduring Unionist hegemony (which could only ever realistically be overturned by the introduction of direct rule or revolt - there was no way by which, via the ballot box, the Stormont Government could be changed until there was a change in the political process).
"the right to vote in local government elections was restricted to ratepayers - again favouring Protestants - with those holding or renting properties in more than one ward receiving more than one vote, up to a maximum of six."
Though, I should point out that there remains additional seats in the Seanad in Dublin as representation for NUI graduates.
Politicians have always lied - It's just the size of the lies that varies. You can't hold politicians legally responsible for promises given that the future is uncertain.
The electorate need to become a bit more clued up about politics rather than taking everything as gospel.
The future is uncertain, but I can confidently say that some things can be predicted. Promising things that you can’t feasibly deliver is lying and people should be accountable.
You can’t assume knowledge of politics, it’s unfair. It’s the same as saying you shouldn’t give the vote to people who are not deemed intelligent enough. If you are privileged enough to have an understanding / rounded knowledge of politics then that’s fine, others aren’t and need to be told the truth, concisely. The trust is gone. People are being ripped off. It’s comparable to to a tradesmen telling you you need to replace something just because you don’t understand it. They would be hounded and held to account. Why aren’t politicians.
Politicians have always lied - It's just the size of the lies that varies. You can't hold politicians legally responsible for promises given that the future is uncertain.
The electorate need to become a bit more clued up about politics rather than taking everything as gospel.
The future is uncertain, but I can confidently say that some things can be predicted. Promising things that you can’t feasibly deliver is lying and people should be accountable.
You can’t assume knowledge of politics, it’s unfair. It’s the same as saying you shouldn’t give the vote to people who are not deemed intelligent enough. If you are privileged enough to have an understanding / rounded knowledge of politics then that’s fine, others aren’t and need to be told the truth, concisely. The trust is gone. People are being ripped off. It’s comparable to to a tradesmen telling you you need to replace something just because you don’t understand it. They would be hounded and held to account. Why aren’t politicians.
Very good analogy. The only difference is that if I fall for a tradesman's lies, it is only me and my family that will pay the price. With politics, we all have to pay the price for our neighbours' bamboozlement. Exactly what's happening with Brexit.
If I buy something from a tradesman who clearly lied, he surely doesn't have the defence that the tradesmen I didn't buy from were also lying. But that seems to be the case with Brexit.
If I buy something from a tradesman who clearly lied, he surely doesn't have the defence that the tradesmen I didn't buy from were also lying. But that seems to be the case with Brexit.
Politicians have always lied - It's just the size of the lies that varies. You can't hold politicians legally responsible for promises given that the future is uncertain.
The electorate need to become a bit more clued up about politics rather than taking everything as gospel.
The future is uncertain, but I can confidently say that some things can be predicted. Promising things that you can’t feasibly deliver is lying and people should be accountable.
You can’t assume knowledge of politics, it’s unfair. It’s the same as saying you shouldn’t give the vote to people who are not deemed intelligent enough. If you are privileged enough to have an understanding / rounded knowledge of politics then that’s fine, others aren’t and need to be told the truth, concisely. The trust is gone. People are being ripped off. It’s comparable to to a tradesmen telling you you need to replace something just because you don’t understand it. They would be hounded and held to account. Why aren’t politicians.
If people want to remain ignorant and believe everything politicians say that's fair enough. I'm not really clear when this 'golden age' of trustworthy politicians was.
The big difference in recent years is that It's been much harder to cover things up hence the increase in cynicism about politics.
Politics is about compromise and the art of the possible - the electorate seem to want to be lied to rather than be told by a politician that they'll try and do something.
Politicians can't make guaranteed promises about the future.
If people want to remain ignorant and believe everything politicians say that's fair enough. I'm not really clear when this 'golden age' of trustworthy politicians was.
The big difference in recent years is that It's been much harder to cover things up hence the increase in cynicism about politics.
Politics is about compromise and the art of the possible - the electorate seem to want to be lied to rather than be told by a politician that they'll try and do something.
Politicians can't make guaranteed promises about the future.
People need to hear the truth once in a while. The fact it’s acceptable to just lie to get in power is totally wrong. We are pretty much choosing between who has lied the least and delivered some of what they said, it’s insane.
Why are Corbyn and May not being true to their beliefs. One is an historical eurosceptic, one a staunch remainer. Both still lying to themselves.
Corbyn was authentic, he was likeable for that reason, he had his beliefs and he stuck to them. He has now lost that appeal. People may not have agreed with his policies but at least he remained true to himself and you believed what he was saying was what he believed. That was his golden age, he was genuine. He has now sold out. He is still a eurosceptic but won’t admit to it or avoids every question / doesn’t plainly answer questions on it.
It’s a dream but a politician with an ounce of sincerity would be nice.
Sure let the EU has tried to enshrine worker rights in areas such as working time directive (that we opt out of) and many of the European nations are more baturally distributive from rich to poorer than the UK.
What don’t the trade unions and Corbyn like?
Also don’t understand why the farmers were so against the EU.
Sure let the EU has tried to enshrine worker rights in areas such as working time directive (that we opt out of) and many of the European nations are more baturally distributive from rich to poorer than the UK.
What don’t the trade unions and Corbyn like?
Also don’t understand why the farmers were so against the EU.
The U.K. can’t and doesn’t opt out of the Working time directive. Individuals can opt out but we can’t as a EU member state. Simply put :
You can't work more than 48 hours a week on average - normally averaged over 17 weeks. This law is sometimes called the 'working time directive' or 'working time regulations'. You can choose to work more by opting out of the 48-hour week. If you're under 18, you can't work more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week.
If people want to remain ignorant and believe everything politicians say that's fair enough. I'm not really clear when this 'golden age' of trustworthy politicians was.
The big difference in recent years is that It's been much harder to cover things up hence the increase in cynicism about politics.
Politics is about compromise and the art of the possible - the electorate seem to want to be lied to rather than be told by a politician that they'll try and do something.
Politicians can't make guaranteed promises about the future.
People need to hear the truth once in a while. The fact it’s acceptable to just lie to get in power is totally wrong. We are pretty much choosing between who has lied the least and delivered some of what they said, it’s insane.
Why are Corbyn and May not being true to their beliefs. One is an historical eurosceptic, one a staunch remainer. Both still lying to themselves.
Corbyn was authentic, he was likeable for that reason, he had his beliefs and he stuck to them. He has now lost that appeal. People may not have agreed with his policies but at least he remained true to himself and you believed what he was saying was what he believed. That was his golden age, he was genuine. He has now sold out. He is still a eurosceptic but won’t admit to it or avoids every question / doesn’t plainly answer questions on it.
It’s a dream but a politician with an ounce of sincerity would be nice.
Corbyn voted to remain because whilst he is critical of the EU in many aspects, overall he believes that leaving it would be detrimental to the country. He has consistently held this position. He is not sufficiently pro Europe to demand another referendum nor sufficiently anti to demand we don't have one. I think the driver will be public opinion or circumstance. Of course he can then be accused of allowing himself to be led by public opinion - not sure that is a bad thing from time to time. And keeping your options open when you don't know how certain things will pan out sounds equally sensible.
If people want to remain ignorant and believe everything politicians say that's fair enough. I'm not really clear when this 'golden age' of trustworthy politicians was.
The big difference in recent years is that It's been much harder to cover things up hence the increase in cynicism about politics.
Politics is about compromise and the art of the possible - the electorate seem to want to be lied to rather than be told by a politician that they'll try and do something.
Politicians can't make guaranteed promises about the future.
People need to hear the truth once in a while. The fact it’s acceptable to just lie to get in power is totally wrong. We are pretty much choosing between who has lied the least and delivered some of what they said, it’s insane.
Why are Corbyn and May not being true to their beliefs. One is an historical eurosceptic, one a staunch remainer. Both still lying to themselves.
Corbyn was authentic, he was likeable for that reason, he had his beliefs and he stuck to them. He has now lost that appeal. People may not have agreed with his policies but at least he remained true to himself and you believed what he was saying was what he believed. That was his golden age, he was genuine. He has now sold out. He is still a eurosceptic but won’t admit to it or avoids every question / doesn’t plainly answer questions on it.
It’s a dream but a politician with an ounce of sincerity would be nice.
Corbyn voted to remain because whilst he is critical of the EU in many aspects, overall he believes that leaving it would be detrimental to the country. He has consistently held this position. He is not sufficiently pro Europe to demand another referendum nor sufficiently anti to demand we don't have one. I think the driver will be public opinion or circumstance. Of course he can then be accused of allowing himself to be led by public opinion - not sure that is a bad thing from time to time. And keeping your options open when you don't know how certain things will pan out sounds equally sensible.
It is, of course, sensible, if you do not purport to be a "Leader".
One of the defining aspects of said role is leading...
I know I'm picky, but he should just state what he believes in, and seek to bring his party with him. One of the complaints about Tony Blair was that he was governed by focus groups and stood for nothing in particular. It's hardly the greatest advertisement for those seeking to bury the New Labour years if what they do is ape their approach.
Prague News reaches me that Europe is getting closer to a Czech-out. Any substance in this or is it nonsense?
A what???
My term for Chexit
Oh, you mean Czexit...
a few months ago I might have been somewhat more concerned but in that few months the populists have generally backed away from such talk (as they have in Hungary, btw). Rather unfortunately, the BBC let Czech PM Babis loose in English at the Salzburg summit. It didn't help the Remain side here, but Babis is no Macron. I could fill a page with a list of his crimes, but he is courting the populist vote. So his comments here are telling, in respect of your question..
Of course we do have our extremists, screeching about a referendum. They are called SPD (not at all to be confused with the German one) and the ludicrous hate-filled cartoon racist who leads them is called Tomio Okamura. Now I know you have been here a few times and may think that isn't a Czech -sounding name, and you'd be right. You might even think it sounds a bit Japanese and you'd be even more right. That is exactly what he is. A half- Japanese screaming to the Czechs about keeping out the foreign aliens. He has a brother who is a normal politician in a normal party, who has completely disowned him. I need to learn the Czech equivalent of "you couldn't make it up"...
Who or what suggested to you that Czexit is a thing, out of interest?
If people want to remain ignorant and believe everything politicians say that's fair enough. I'm not really clear when this 'golden age' of trustworthy politicians was.
The big difference in recent years is that It's been much harder to cover things up hence the increase in cynicism about politics.
Politics is about compromise and the art of the possible - the electorate seem to want to be lied to rather than be told by a politician that they'll try and do something.
Politicians can't make guaranteed promises about the future.
People need to hear the truth once in a while. The fact it’s acceptable to just lie to get in power is totally wrong. We are pretty much choosing between who has lied the least and delivered some of what they said, it’s insane.
Why are Corbyn and May not being true to their beliefs. One is an historical eurosceptic, one a staunch remainer. Both still lying to themselves.
Corbyn was authentic, he was likeable for that reason, he had his beliefs and he stuck to them. He has now lost that appeal. People may not have agreed with his policies but at least he remained true to himself and you believed what he was saying was what he believed. That was his golden age, he was genuine. He has now sold out. He is still a eurosceptic but won’t admit to it or avoids every question / doesn’t plainly answer questions on it.
It’s a dream but a politician with an ounce of sincerity would be nice.
Corbyn voted to remain because whilst he is critical of the EU in many aspects, overall he believes that leaving it would be detrimental to the country. He has consistently held this position. He is not sufficiently pro Europe to demand another referendum nor sufficiently anti to demand we don't have one. I think the driver will be public opinion or circumstance. Of course he can then be accused of allowing himself to be led by public opinion - not sure that is a bad thing from time to time. And keeping your options open when you don't know how certain things will pan out sounds equally sensible.
It is, of course, sensible, if you do not purport to be a "Leader".
One of the defining aspects of said role is leading...
I know I'm picky, but he should just state what he believes in, and seek to bring his party with him. One of the complaints about Tony Blair was that he was governed by focus groups and stood for nothing in particular. It's hardly the greatest advertisement for those seeking to bury the New Labour years if what they do is ape their approach.
So you should not do what is sensible if you are a leader? I'd rather not have that sort of leadership.
If people want to remain ignorant and believe everything politicians say that's fair enough. I'm not really clear when this 'golden age' of trustworthy politicians was.
The big difference in recent years is that It's been much harder to cover things up hence the increase in cynicism about politics.
Politics is about compromise and the art of the possible - the electorate seem to want to be lied to rather than be told by a politician that they'll try and do something.
Politicians can't make guaranteed promises about the future.
People need to hear the truth once in a while. The fact it’s acceptable to just lie to get in power is totally wrong. We are pretty much choosing between who has lied the least and delivered some of what they said, it’s insane.
Why are Corbyn and May not being true to their beliefs. One is an historical eurosceptic, one a staunch remainer. Both still lying to themselves.
Corbyn was authentic, he was likeable for that reason, he had his beliefs and he stuck to them. He has now lost that appeal. People may not have agreed with his policies but at least he remained true to himself and you believed what he was saying was what he believed. That was his golden age, he was genuine. He has now sold out. He is still a eurosceptic but won’t admit to it or avoids every question / doesn’t plainly answer questions on it.
It’s a dream but a politician with an ounce of sincerity would be nice.
Corbyn voted to remain because whilst he is critical of the EU in many aspects, overall he believes that leaving it would be detrimental to the country. He has consistently held this position. He is not sufficiently pro Europe to demand another referendum nor sufficiently anti to demand we don't have one. I think the driver will be public opinion or circumstance. Of course he can then be accused of allowing himself to be led by public opinion - not sure that is a bad thing from time to time. And keeping your options open when you don't know how certain things will pan out sounds equally sensible.
You've stated a few times how Corbyn voted, I'm curious how you know this.
Because he has told us. I think he is honest and wouldn't lie on such a thing. I think that is a reasonable assumption most people would make. Even if they don't support him. I think May voted to remain also btw.
If people want to remain ignorant and believe everything politicians say that's fair enough. I'm not really clear when this 'golden age' of trustworthy politicians was.
The big difference in recent years is that It's been much harder to cover things up hence the increase in cynicism about politics.
Politics is about compromise and the art of the possible - the electorate seem to want to be lied to rather than be told by a politician that they'll try and do something.
Politicians can't make guaranteed promises about the future.
People need to hear the truth once in a while. The fact it’s acceptable to just lie to get in power is totally wrong. We are pretty much choosing between who has lied the least and delivered some of what they said, it’s insane.
Why are Corbyn and May not being true to their beliefs. One is an historical eurosceptic, one a staunch remainer. Both still lying to themselves.
Corbyn was authentic, he was likeable for that reason, he had his beliefs and he stuck to them. He has now lost that appeal. People may not have agreed with his policies but at least he remained true to himself and you believed what he was saying was what he believed. That was his golden age, he was genuine. He has now sold out. He is still a eurosceptic but won’t admit to it or avoids every question / doesn’t plainly answer questions on it.
It’s a dream but a politician with an ounce of sincerity would be nice.
Corbyn voted to remain because whilst he is critical of the EU in many aspects, overall he believes that leaving it would be detrimental to the country. He has consistently held this position. He is not sufficiently pro Europe to demand another referendum nor sufficiently anti to demand we don't have one. I think the driver will be public opinion or circumstance. Of course he can then be accused of allowing himself to be led by public opinion - not sure that is a bad thing from time to time. And keeping your options open when you don't know how certain things will pan out sounds equally sensible.
It is, of course, sensible, if you do not purport to be a "Leader".
One of the defining aspects of said role is leading...
I know I'm picky, but he should just state what he believes in, and seek to bring his party with him. One of the complaints about Tony Blair was that he was governed by focus groups and stood for nothing in particular. It's hardly the greatest advertisement for those seeking to bury the New Labour years if what they do is ape their approach.
So you should not do what is sensible if you are a leader? I'd rather not have that sort of leadership.
I'd rather have all politicians be influenced by both conviction and thoughtful consideration, and, above all, I'd like them to be honest.
Jeremy Corbyn is, by all accounts the Leader of HM Opposition, it might be argued as a result that he is obliged to lead.
There are all sorts of things that it would be sensible for him to do, depending on your point of view, but it is, I would argue, the most sensible thing of all to adopt a clear position about the single most important political issue of the day (if for no other reason than that the public will assume that he is seeking to hide something and that he is deliberately trying to hoodwink the electorate). Timing, as always, is key - for Brexit, the denouement is at hand, Labour has to decide what kind of UK it wants to see in six months time.
If he does not adopt an unambiguous position, he will very quickly come to be seen as being, at least intellectually, dishonest.
Naturally, it helps, when choosing an unambiguous position, to choose wisely - but sitting on his hands is no longer an option for the Labour leader.
Comments
We don’t have census data for around the time of partition but looking at voting in elections (sadly usually along cultural lines) the split in 1921 was roughly two-thirds Protestant to one-third Catholic.
Fast forward to the 2011 census and 48% of NI residents say they are Protestant / brought up Protestant and 45% say they are Catholic / brought up Catholic. The Protestant figure is falling and the Catholic figure is rising so by now the two figures are probably equal.
So Northern Ireland is now a country with roughly equal numbers of people who’d call themselves Protestant and those who’d call themselves Catholic.
I’m sure with a bit of gerrymandering, they will hang on for a bit.
Mind you, there is an argument that the creation of Northern Ireland (when the threat of violence, we might say terrorism today, and that of the Army refusing to act against it, determined Government policy) was itself gerrymandering.
The Boundary Commission made recommendations in 2016 regarding changes in Northern Ireland, which would have seen the DUP lose a seat, the DUP objected, now, in an environment where the DUP are (at least vicariously) in power, the Boundary Commission's final proposal has the DUP gaining a seat.
Of course, Northern Ireland would never be defined by religious divide....
There has always been a proportion of Catholics (even moderate Nationalists) in Northern Ireland who have been generally content with the status quo - and would be unlikely, therefore, to seek a change - and this proportion may well have been increased as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. What the politics of Brexit have done is reintroduce the divisions that have bedevilled this place for much of the last
100400 years. So it's very difficult to see how the mood is here now.What I would say is that a genuinely economically damaging Brexit (and that is a far higher probability here) would be likely, in my opinion, to throw up all sorts of unforeseen and/or unwanted consequences - if we are lucky, it would be something like Protestants/moderate Unionists (and there have always been Irish Nationalist Protestants) favouring the idea of a United Ireland in an act of enlightened self-interest; but if not, we could see a rise in inter-communal tensions and violence.
The electorate need to become a bit more clued up about politics rather than taking everything as gospel.
I have a vague memory from the times of the troubles that in certain elections for certain institutions people legitimately had more than one vote.
People owning businesses for example.
They were more likely to be from the Unionist persuasion and it skewed 'democracy' in the favour of the Unionist people.
I might have this a bit wrong.
According to BBC History (bbc.co.uk/history/recent/troubles/the_troubles_article_01.shtml):
"the right to vote in local government elections was restricted to ratepayers - again favouring Protestants - with those holding or renting properties in more than one ward receiving more than one vote, up to a maximum of six."
Though, I should point out that there remains additional seats in the Seanad in Dublin as representation for NUI graduates.
You can’t assume knowledge of politics, it’s unfair. It’s the same as saying you shouldn’t give the vote to people who are not deemed intelligent enough. If you are privileged enough to have an understanding / rounded knowledge of politics then that’s fine, others aren’t and need to be told the truth, concisely. The trust is gone. People are being ripped off. It’s comparable to to a tradesmen telling you you need to replace something just because you don’t understand it. They would be hounded and held to account. Why aren’t politicians.
The big difference in recent years is that It's been much harder to cover things up hence the increase in cynicism about politics.
Politics is about compromise and the art of the possible - the electorate seem to want to be lied to rather than be told by a politician that they'll try and do something.
Politicians can't make guaranteed promises about the future.
Why are Corbyn and May not being true to their beliefs. One is an historical eurosceptic, one a staunch remainer. Both still lying to themselves.
Corbyn was authentic, he was likeable for that reason, he had his beliefs and he stuck to them. He has now lost that appeal. People may not have agreed with his policies but at least he remained true to himself and you believed what he was saying was what he believed. That was his golden age, he was genuine. He has now sold out. He is still a eurosceptic but won’t admit to it or avoids every question / doesn’t plainly answer questions on it.
It’s a dream but a politician with an ounce of sincerity would be nice.
Sure let the EU has tried to enshrine worker rights in areas such as working time directive (that we opt out of) and many of the European nations are more baturally distributive from rich to poorer than the UK.
What don’t the trade unions and Corbyn like?
Also don’t understand why the farmers were so against the EU.
Simply put :
You can't work more than 48 hours a week on average - normally averaged over 17 weeks. This law is sometimes called the 'working time directive' or 'working time regulations'. You can choose to work more by opting out of the 48-hour week. If you're under 18, you can't work more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week.
One of the defining aspects of said role is leading...
I know I'm picky, but he should just state what he believes in, and seek to bring his party with him. One of the complaints about Tony Blair was that he was governed by focus groups and stood for nothing in particular. It's hardly the greatest advertisement for those seeking to bury the New Labour years if what they do is ape their approach.
Oh, you mean Czexit...
a few months ago I might have been somewhat more concerned but in that few months the populists have generally backed away from such talk (as they have in Hungary, btw). Rather unfortunately, the BBC let Czech PM Babis loose in English at the Salzburg summit. It didn't help the Remain side here, but Babis is no Macron. I could fill a page with a list of his crimes, but he is courting the populist vote. So his comments here are telling, in respect of your question..
Of course we do have our extremists, screeching about a referendum. They are called SPD (not at all to be confused with the German one) and the ludicrous hate-filled cartoon racist who leads them is called Tomio Okamura. Now I know you have been here a few times and may think that isn't a Czech -sounding name, and you'd be right. You might even think it sounds a bit Japanese and you'd be even more right. That is exactly what he is. A half- Japanese screaming to the Czechs about keeping out the foreign aliens. He has a brother who is a normal politician in a normal party, who has completely disowned him. I need to learn the Czech equivalent of "you couldn't make it up"...
Who or what suggested to you that Czexit is a thing, out of interest?
Jeremy Corbyn is, by all accounts the Leader of HM Opposition, it might be argued as a result that he is obliged to lead.
There are all sorts of things that it would be sensible for him to do, depending on your point of view, but it is, I would argue, the most sensible thing of all to adopt a clear position about the single most important political issue of the day (if for no other reason than that the public will assume that he is seeking to hide something and that he is deliberately trying to hoodwink the electorate). Timing, as always, is key - for Brexit, the denouement is at hand, Labour has to decide what kind of UK it wants to see in six months time.
If he does not adopt an unambiguous position, he will very quickly come to be seen as being, at least intellectually, dishonest.
Naturally, it helps, when choosing an unambiguous position, to choose wisely - but sitting on his hands is no longer an option for the Labour leader.
What happens with Gibraltar?