Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
The first one was legally non binding but was treated as binding by the politicians. I would suggest that any second ref be legally binding, but am not mega fussed about that. This is probably academic as the chances of a second ref appear small.
At least you're beginning to come to terms with that. You now just need to accept that there will be a Conservative majority government led by Boris Johnson!gooner1 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Based on electoral law and proven facts. If the ref had been an election, the court would have quashed the result. Info available via Google or Ecosia . Choose the latter to make Greta less glum.
If. But it wasn't, and hasn't. Factoid.
Mothersruin said:
gooner1 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Based on electoral law and proven facts. If the ref had been an election, the court would have quashed the result. Info available via Google or Ecosia . Choose the latter to make Greta less glum.
If. But it wasn't, and hasn't. Factoid.
Boris visiting ex KGB officers after the Scripol attack?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/17/bori...
Not that he met him, jetted off after a NATO summit on the chemical weapons attack, dropped security detail and went partying with said ex agent says the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/17/bori...
Not that he met him, jetted off after a NATO summit on the chemical weapons attack, dropped security detail and went partying with said ex agent says the Guardian.
james_GTI said:
Breadvan72 said:
The first one was legally non binding but was treated as binding by the politicians. I would suggest that any second ref be legally binding, but am not mega fussed about that. This is probably academic as the chances of a second ref appear small.
At least you're beginning to come to terms with that. You now just need to accept that there will be a Conservative majority government led by Boris Johnson!Breadvan72 said:
Keep up at the back! I have been saying for ages that Johnson will very likely win and that hard Brexit will very likely happen. The WA will probably lead to a so called no deal (no such thing in reality) in 2021, although that is less likely, I think. If there is a referendum, Brexit will be toast. There will likely not be a referendum. What I think will likely happen and what I would prefer to happen are not the same things.
In that case I guess the style and content of your posts must be part of your coping mechanism.Breadvan72 said:
The first one was legally non binding but was treated as binding by the politicians. I would suggest that any second ref be legally binding, but am not mega fussed about that. This is probably academic as the chances of a second ref appear small.
Based on all the latest polls, the chances are tiny. The Tory's are looking at up to 400 seatsI remain surprised that even those who want Johnson so that he can make a start on the long, slow process of Brexit (this is called "getting Brexit done by 31 Jan") seem not to be holding their noses about Johnson. Many of them seem actually keen on him. Ditto Farage on the Farage thread. I can understand holding your nose: I often have to do it at work. Actual enthusiasm is less explicable.
I think that I could just about hold my nose for a very short time if the vile Corbyn were the powerless PM of a minority or coalition government, but I do not think we will get there. TBH, I am not sure if I could hold my nose about Corbyn even for five minutes, because he is a Jew hater and a dangerous fool. Johnson hates other minorities, and is a dangerous fool. What a choice!
I think that I could just about hold my nose for a very short time if the vile Corbyn were the powerless PM of a minority or coalition government, but I do not think we will get there. TBH, I am not sure if I could hold my nose about Corbyn even for five minutes, because he is a Jew hater and a dangerous fool. Johnson hates other minorities, and is a dangerous fool. What a choice!
james_GTI said:
In that case I guess the style and content of your posts must be part of your coping mechanism.
You guess wrong. The style and content of my posts are the style and content of my posts. They signify nothing. This is an internet chattering room. Nothing here signifies anything. I am unfailingly surprised that some here appear to struggle with this rather obvious concept. Burwood said:
Based on all the latest polls, the chances are tiny. The Tory's are looking at up to 400 seats
I agree: tiny. I reckon about 360-70 ish, but I could well be wrong.Genuinely intended to be helpful: The plural of the noun Tory is Tories. Plurals of nouns do not require apostrophes. Apostrophes take the place of omitted characters. You can blame the Labour Party and the Conservative Party (1945 to 1979, both now RIP) for me knowing stuff like that.
Breadvan72 said:
I remain surprised that even those who want Johnson so that he can make a start on the long, slow process of Brexit (this is called "getting Brexit done by 31 Jan") seem not to be holding their noses about Johnson. Many of them seem actually keen on him. Ditto Farage on the Farage thread. I can understand holding your nose: I often have to do it at work. Actual enthusiasm is less explicable.
I think that I could just about hold my nose for a very short time if the vile Corbyn were the powerless PM of a minority or coalition government, but I do not think we will get there. TBH, I am not sure if I could hold my nose about Corbyn even for five minutes, because he is a Jew hater and a dangerous fool. Johnson hates other minorities, and is a dangerous fool. What a choice!
bold needs qualifying with evidence (as a start on some of the rest).I think that I could just about hold my nose for a very short time if the vile Corbyn were the powerless PM of a minority or coalition government, but I do not think we will get there. TBH, I am not sure if I could hold my nose about Corbyn even for five minutes, because he is a Jew hater and a dangerous fool. Johnson hates other minorities, and is a dangerous fool. What a choice!
Breadvan72 said:
I would ignore an election result declared unlawful by an election court. Why should I pay any attention to a referendum result that, if the ref had been an election, would have been declared unlawful by an election court? I would say the same if remain had similarly stolen a result. People say respect the result, but why respect a thing that is not respectable? People say that we should respect a person’s opinion, but what if that opinion is that all people with disabilities should be euthanised? I use an extreme example to make the point that not every thing is respectable.
That is one point. The other point is that, even if the result had been spotlessly legit, three and a half years have passed and the situational map has changed. More voting is more democracy, not less. Democracy is always the better choice.
The result hasn't been voided by a court though, despite an apparently well funded and serious effort to discredit the result it stands and was reaffirmed in the 2017 general election where 2 parties promising to uphold it won a historically high share of the vote. If we are to give credit to all polls then it will be confirmed again next month. This sounds like a sort of comfort blanket to shield you from the reality that people voted for something you disagree with. That is one point. The other point is that, even if the result had been spotlessly legit, three and a half years have passed and the situational map has changed. More voting is more democracy, not less. Democracy is always the better choice.
The situational map changes in every moment but the fact that we have already voted to leave has not. If you want more voting and more democracy then how about a second referendum between the deal and WTO?
JuanCarlosFandango said:
The result hasn't been voided by a court though, despite an apparently well funded and serious effort to discredit the result it stands and was reaffirmed in the 2017 general election where 2 parties promising to uphold it won a historically high share of the vote. If we are to give credit to all polls then it will be confirmed again next month. This sounds like a sort of comfort blanket to shield you from the reality that people voted for something you disagree with.
The situational map changes in every moment but the fact that we have already voted to leave has not. If you want more voting and more democracy then how about a second referendum between the deal and WTO?
As long as the facts about the current state of WTO, and how it is being ignored and sidestepped by the big countries, is made available to all and everyone, then, perhaps, there will be little point in a referendum between the deal and WTO.The situational map changes in every moment but the fact that we have already voted to leave has not. If you want more voting and more democracy then how about a second referendum between the deal and WTO?
I can see no logical argument against another referendum that excludes cost.
Derek Smith said:
As long as the facts about the current state of WTO, and how it is being ignored and sidestepped by the big countries, is made available to all and everyone, then, perhaps, there will be little point in a referendum between the deal and WTO.
I can see no logical argument against another referendum that excludes cost.
Are these facts hidden at the moment? Can you share your secret source that will make everyone run back to the EU?I can see no logical argument against another referendum that excludes cost.
We already had a referendum and got a result. A referendum about how to actually implement that result is a reasonable step. A rerun of the same referendum with the "new information" that the Tories are not very good at leaving the EU is just an attempt to get the result that some politicians want.
Derek Smith said:
As long as the facts about the current state of WTO, and how it is being ignored and sidestepped by the big countries, is made available to all and everyone, then, perhaps, there will be little point in a referendum between the deal and WTO.
I can see no logical argument against another referendum that excludes cost.
We already deal with most of the world on WTO terms so I don't see the relevance. Or perhaps it's dealing with the EU on WTO that worries you. Is it a case of 'Stay in the EU because the EU can't be trusted not to ignore and sidestep trade rules'? I can see no logical argument against another referendum that excludes cost.
Oilchange said:
Can we have a third referendum if people don't like the result of the first and the second?
How about best of 5?
How about settling it the old fashioned way. Each side picks their champion and then they have a fight to the death?How about best of 5?
They could sell the rights to Sky Box Office and make it pay per view?
ETA - Based on the stereotypical supporter of each side I'd put my money on Leave.
SWoll said:
How about settling it the old fashioned way. Each side picks their champion and then they have a fight to the death?
They could sell the rights to Sky Box Office and make it pay per view?
ETA - Based on the stereotypical supporter of each side I'd put my money on Leave.
Ah but think of the joy when they say they want another referendum (round).They could sell the rights to Sky Box Office and make it pay per view?
ETA - Based on the stereotypical supporter of each side I'd put my money on Leave.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff