The Chronicle is unable to evaluate the veracity of widespread rumors that Trudeau regularly received fellatio from students while on the private school’s campus.
This phrase is almost artistic in terms of getting the story out while disclaiming any responsibility for it...
As their teacher? He must resign if so. As a student? Good luck to him.
...or I could just read the link. Teacher. That's vile if true.
Wow. If that is as indicated, surely he would face criminal charges?
Not sure what the law would have been like back then. If it wasn't illegal then, it ought to have been.
In the U.K., the law raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 where there was a relationship of trust was the Sexual Offences Act 2000. Until then, a sexual relationship between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old pupil wasn’t actually illegal.
Indeed and nor should it be in my view if the affair was with someone over the age of consent, a grounds for a professional misconduct hearing and dismissal from post maybe but not jail
It’s a difficult one, from memory there were a number of cases that were clearly coercive or exploitative, and the new law is more straightforward to prosecute than offences such as rape or false imprisonment.
The problem is a professor can have an affair with a 19 year old student and not do anything illegal but a teacher can have an affair with an 18 year old pupil and face criminal charges. Why is that fair? 16 or under prosecute fine, 17+ leave the police out of it unless it was clearly rape.
The Chronicle is unable to evaluate the veracity of widespread rumors that Trudeau regularly received fellatio from students while on the private school’s campus.
This phrase is almost artistic in terms of getting the story out while disclaiming any responsibility for it...
As their teacher? He must resign if so. As a student? Good luck to him.
...or I could just read the link. Teacher. That's vile if true.
Wow. If that is as indicated, surely he would face criminal charges?
Not sure what the law would have been like back then. If it wasn't illegal then, it ought to have been.
In the U.K., the law raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 where there was a relationship of trust was the Sexual Offences Act 2000. Until then, a sexual relationship between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old pupil wasn’t actually illegal.
Indeed and nor should it be in my view if the affair was with someone over the age of consent, a grounds for a professional misconduct hearing and dismissal from post maybe but not jail
It’s a difficult one, from memory there were a number of cases that were clearly coercive or exploitative, and the new law is more straightforward to prosecute than offences such as rape or false imprisonment.
The problem is a professor can have an affair with a 19 year old student and not do anything illegal but a teacher can have an affair with an 18 year old pupil and face criminal charges. Why is that fair? 16 or under prosecute fine, 17+ leave the police out of it.
A teacher is deemed to be 'in loco parentis' while a professor is not. You have different responsibilities, which you accept when you take the job. Fair doesn't come in to it.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
Question for you - answer to inform my betting.
If we get a GE, will the Tory manifesto Brexit position be a pure and simple leave asap with No Deal?
Or will it be fudged up with the possibility of trying one last time to get a Deal but leave with No Deal if that effort fails?
(Perhaps with the spin that the 'Surrender Act' screwed Johnson's negotiating position this time, so without that, with No Deal back as a credible threat, he remains confident that a Deal is on.)
Keen to be able to predict this because I think it could potentially make a difference to the GE outcome.
It will be leave with No Deal unless the EU back down on the backstop (though if the Tories do win a majority I suspect Boris would just remove the GB backstop and let Northern Ireland voters decide by referendum on the NI backstop to get a Deal )
What exactly is prohibiting him from doing it now?
Again, he has been actively encouraged to do so.
As the DUP will veto it
Does the DUP still hold a veto in a situation where his parliamentary majority stands at -43 (or whatever it is today) ?
He would have to win votes from the sensible moderates anyway.
Yes it does as it would need at least 10 to 20 Labour MPs to vote for it if the DUP does not and probably more given not every one of the 21 Tory anti No Deal MPs or the ERG would vote for even a NI only backstop WA
Maybe observing British politics from afar is clouding my view too much, but I find it virtually inconceivable that it should not be possible to find two dozen moderate, sensible, responsible MPs of any colour who are prepared to put the stability and security of NI before any other considerations.
People said Labour MPs would vote for May's Withdrawal Agreement on that basis, they did not
The Chronicle is unable to evaluate the veracity of widespread rumors that Trudeau regularly received fellatio from students while on the private school’s campus.
This phrase is almost artistic in terms of getting the story out while disclaiming any responsibility for it...
As their teacher? He must resign if so. As a student? Good luck to him.
...or I could just read the link. Teacher. That's vile if true.
Wow. If that is as indicated, surely he would face criminal charges?
Not sure what the law would have been like back then. If it wasn't illegal then, it ought to have been.
In the U.K., the law raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 where there was a relationship of trust was the Sexual Offences Act 2000. Until then, a sexual relationship between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old pupil wasn’t actually illegal.
Indeed and nor should it be in my view if the affair was with someone over the age of consent, a grounds for a professional misconduct hearing and dismissal from post maybe but not jail
It’s a difficult one, from memory there were a number of cases that were clearly coercive or exploitative, and the new law is more straightforward to prosecute than offences such as rape or false imprisonment.
The problem is a professor can have an affair with a 19 year old student and not do anything illegal but a teacher can have an affair with an 18 year old pupil and face criminal charges. Why is that fair? 16 or under prosecute fine, 17+ leave the police out of it.
A teacher is deemed to be 'in loco parentis' while a professor is not. You have different responsibilities, which you accept when you take the job. Fair doesn't come in to it.
Nope, sorry sixth formers are more than capable of looking after themselves as much as Freshers at a university, indeed 16-18 year olds can leave school legally for apprenticeships, further training etc. I called it unfair as it is
Parliament is soverign where as advisory referendum are not!
Like I said keep deluding yourself. The narrative will be.one of complete betrayal and you Remaniacs will own that
Delusion is one thing, I could give you insight into that! Actual legal basis and the fundamental basis of law is another. I dont have a problem with a deal as you advocate but i cannot see it happening under BJ! I dont think No Deal is democratically the way to go unless a. confirmatory vote is held!
Just because something is legal does not mean it is either right or wise.
Suicide is legal but it is not something I would advocate or pursue. Revocation, either with or without a referendum is democracy committing suicide.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
Question for you - answer to inform my betting.
If we get a GE, will the Tory manifesto Brexit position be a pure and simple leave asap with No Deal?
Or will it be fudged up with the possibility of trying one last time to get a Deal but leave with No Deal if that effort fails?
(Perhaps with the spin that the 'Surrender Act' screwed Johnson's negotiating position this time, so without that, with No Deal back as a credible threat, he remains confident that a Deal is on.)
Keen to be able to predict this because I think it could potentially make a difference to the GE outcome.
It will be leave with No Deal unless the EU back down on the backstop (though if the Tories do win a majority I suspect Boris would just remove the GB backstop and let Northern Ireland voters decide by referendum on the NI backstop to get a Deal )
What exactly is prohibiting him from doing it now?
Again, he has been actively encouraged to do so.
As the DUP will veto it
Does the DUP still hold a veto in a situation where his parliamentary majority stands at -43 (or whatever it is today) ?
He would have to win votes from the sensible moderates anyway.
Yes it does as it would need at least 10 to 20 Labour MPs to vote for it if the DUP does not and probably more given not every one of the 21 Tory anti No Deal MPs or the ERG would vote for even a NI only backstop WA
Maybe observing British politics from afar is clouding my view too much, but I find it virtually inconceivable that it should not be possible to find two dozen moderate, sensible, responsible MPs of any colour who are prepared to put the stability and security of NI before any other considerations.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
Question for you - answer to inform my betting.
If we get a GE, will the Tory manifesto Brexit position be a pure and simple leave asap with No Deal?
Or will it be fudged up with the possibility of trying one last time to get a Deal but leave with No Deal if that effort fails?
(Perhaps with the spin that the 'Surrender Act' screwed Johnson's negotiating position this time, so without that, with No Deal back as a credible threat, he remains confident that a Deal is on.)
Keen to be able to predict this because I think it could potentially make a difference to the GE outcome.
It will be leave with No Deal unless the EU back down on the backstop (though if the Tories do win a majority I suspect Boris would just remove the GB backstop and let Northern Ireland voters decide by referendum on the NI backstop to get a Deal )
What exactly is prohibiting him from doing it now?
Again, he has been actively encouraged to do so.
As the DUP will veto it
Does the DUP still hold a veto in a situation where his parliamentary majority stands at -43 (or whatever it is today) ?
He would have to win votes from the sensible moderates anyway.
Yes it does as it would need at least 10 to 20 Labour MPs to vote for it if the DUP does not and probably more given not every one of the 21 Tory anti No Deal MPs or the ERG would vote for even a NI only backstop WA
Maybe observing British politics from afar is clouding my view too much, but I find it virtually inconceivable that it should not be possible to find two dozen moderate, sensible, responsible MPs of any colour who are prepared to put the stability and security of NI before any other considerations.
People said Labour MPs would vote for May's Withdrawal Agreement on that basis, they did not
And they look for a reason to say no, such as poor language and tone from a PM being important rather than any deal (or prospective deal) on its merits.
The Chronicle is unable to evaluate the veracity of widespread rumors that Trudeau regularly received fellatio from students while on the private school’s campus.
This phrase is almost artistic in terms of getting the story out while disclaiming any responsibility for it...
As their teacher? He must resign if so. As a student? Good luck to him.
The Chronicle is unable to evaluate the veracity of widespread rumors that Trudeau regularly received fellatio from students while on the private school’s campus.
This phrase is almost artistic in terms of getting the story out while disclaiming any responsibility for it...
As their teacher? He must resign if so. As a student? Good luck to him.
...or I could just read the link. Teacher. That's vile if true.
Wow. If that is as indicated, surely he would face criminal charges?
Not sure what the law would have been like back then. If it wasn't illegal then, it ought to have been.
In the U.K., the law raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 where there was a relationship of trust was the Sexual Offences Act 2000. Until then, a sexual relationship between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old pupil wasn’t actually illegal.
Indeed and nor should it be in my view if the affair was with someone over the age of consent, a grounds for a professional misconduct hearing and dismissal from post maybe but not jail
It’s a difficult one, from memory there were a number of cases that were clearly coercive or exploitative, and the new law is more straightforward to prosecute than offences such as rape or false imprisonment.
The problem is a professor can have an affair with a 19 year old student and not do anything illegal but a teacher can have an affair with an 18 year old pupil and face criminal charges. Why is that fair? 16 or under prosecute fine, 17+ leave the police out of it unless it was clearly rape.
The teacher and the 18 year old pupil isn’t illegal, the pupil would need to be under 18 for the teacher to be committing an offence.
Despite the standard age of consent being 16, anyone under 18 is still considered a child by the law. It’s an anomaly that has weird consequences, such as two people being allowed to have sex, but filming it themselves is a serious criminal offence that puts them on the sex offenders’ register. Personally I’d have a single ‘age of majority’ at 18.
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
I dont agree.
I cannot understand the Brexit psychosis. Rational people have become advocates of implementing the worse deal possible. What has happened to these people?
Very simple: Brexiteers feel British identity and sovereignty is threatened by the EU, like a slowly boiling frog.
Leavers understood that the sovereignty that the European Communities Act and subsequent EU treaties had ceded could be got back by leaving the EU. What they didn't understand was that the Good Friday Agreement with another EU member state had also ceded sovereignty. And there is no analogue to an "Article 50" route available for a British withdrawal from the GFA.
NI must stay in the SM and CU because otherwise there would have to be border checks, which would be in breach of the GFA. Talk of technological solutions and arguments over whether a border counts as a border if it's in a warehouse are cack. Since the GFA signatories won't all agree to meet on the Isle of Man and burn what they signed, Britain has three options: 1) renege on the GFA; 2) revoke, or 3) agree a BINO. A hard Brexit and a crashout count under 1). Unfortunately exactly none of the political parties, and so far none of the 28 governments, and no EU institution, has had the guts to say this.
Its very simple - if the British dont put up border posts then they are not in breach of the GFA.
Will Varadker though?
In the event of a hard Brexit by agreement or crashout, he would have to, to honour Ireland's EU treaty obligations. Acting unilaterally (and not under force majeure, because the EUref was advisory) to give a party you've signed an agreement with no other lawful option than breaking the agreement is a breach of the agreement.
A big irony is that people in NI have a right to retain EU citizenship (by applying for RoI passports) under any form of Brexit.
The Chronicle is unable to evaluate the veracity of widespread rumors that Trudeau regularly received fellatio from students while on the private school’s campus.
This phrase is almost artistic in terms of getting the story out while disclaiming any responsibility for it...
As their teacher? He must resign if so. As a student? Good luck to him.
...or I could just read the link. Teacher. That's vile if true.
Wow. If that is as indicated, surely he would face criminal charges?
Not sure what the law would have been like back then. If it wasn't illegal then, it ought to have been.
In the U.K., the law raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 where there was a relationship of trust was the Sexual Offences Act 2000. Until then, a sexual relationship between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old pupil wasn’t actually illegal.
Indeed and nor should it be in my view if the affair was with someone over the age of consent, a grounds for a professional misconduct hearing and dismissal from post maybe but not jail
It’s a difficult one, from memory there were a number of cases that were clearly coercive or exploitative, and the new law is more straightforward to prosecute than offences such as rape or false imprisonment.
The problem is a professor can have an affair with a 19 year old student and not do anything illegal but a teacher can have an affair with an 18 year old pupil and face criminal charges. Why is that fair? 16 or under prosecute fine, 17+ leave the police out of it unless it was clearly rape.
If the student was 18 it wouldn't necessarily be considered a criminal, although it would certainly be professional misconduct and a life ban from teaching.
The same would in several universities apply to the professor now as well, although that's a comparatively recent development.
Confirmation that Jezza doesn't write his own tweets.
A tweet was drafted for Jeremy in light of the recent Russian bombing of hospitals in Idlib. The tweet condemned Syrian and US bombings in Syria (I kid you not)
Confirmation that Jezza doesn't write his own tweets.
A tweet was drafted for Jeremy in light of the recent Russian bombing of hospitals in Idlib. The tweet condemned Syrian and US bombings in Syria (I kid you not)
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
I dont agree.
I cannot understand the Brexit psychosis. Rational people have become advocates of implementing the worse deal possible. What has happened to these people?
Very simple: Brexiteers feel British identity and sovereignty is threatened by the EU, like a slowly boiling frog.
The EU does very very little to assuage these fears.
So here we are.
It's not a valid fear, but even if it was, fuck it. Let it boil. Culture is choice. If exposure to other cultures means we end up eating paella, speaking multiple languages, enjoying German opera and Danish beer, it's because we have grown to like those things better than pasties, monolingualism, Billie Piper and Carling.
The good bits of our culture will get picked up by others, too.
What a thing to get worked up about. What a blinkered view of the world.
Moronic comment. Posts like this really piss me off. They reek of snobbery and contempt. Despite the fact your comment is cliched shite that bears no resemblance to reality (except the more varied diet we now enjoy) there is nothing wrong with patriotism and British identity, just as there isn’t with those of other nations. There’s nothing blinkered or exclusive about it.
People are fundamentally emotional. Identity is very important to them. The EU has continually shat on this with its Ever Closer Union and federalist scope creep. Its been imposed, by treaty by design.
You threaten people’s identities, and you will reap the whirlwind.
No-one wants to be where we are. What about this as an analysis of the future possibilities.
1 There are only two outcomes: remain and leave. So fundamentally there are only two sides. Very few people who know what they are doing want No Deal. This includes most senior Tories. In particular the Tories don't want No Deal at any time when a GE can be called at any time by their enemies, just when the M20 is a lorry park.
2 Therefore as things stand No Deal is not an option for Boris as it places him in the hands of his enemies to calla GE at the worst time for him.
3 Fortunately he can and will avoid No Deal while blaming parliament and his enemies (The Benn Act).
4 Boris can only achieve what he wants - a deal - once he has won an election and can dish the DUP. NI as a whole is desperate to retain its economic links with RoI. Once the DUP is dished a slightly revised and reheated TM deal makes best sense.
5 Remain can only achieve what it wants by the passage of time + winning an election.
6 Therefore both sides have to have an election but there is no chance that Boris's enemies will grant him one until they think they can win it; and they can stop him having one (extraordinary though it is) until 2022.
7 So there is a good case for an election being a long way away.
Who are the 31% under the impression that Johnson “has a deal”?
Doesn't this reflect the news flow of a few days ago when the Westminster bubble was convinced that Johnson had negotiated a fantastic deal, before anyone thought to ask what the other European countries thought about it?
"The European Union is poised to extend Brexit talks into as late as next summer after the European council president, Donald Tusk, dismissed Boris Johnson’s strategy as a “stupid blame game”.
A “range of dates” will now be in play at the meeting of European leaders next week but sources suggested the natural cut-off date would be June."
Parliament is soverign where as advisory referendum are not!
Like I said keep deluding yourself. The narrative will be.one of complete betrayal and you Remaniacs will own that
Delusion is one thing, I could give you insight into that! Actual legal basis and the fundamental basis of law is another. I dont have a problem with a deal as you advocate but i cannot see it happening under BJ! I dont think No Deal is democratically the way to go unless a. confirmatory vote is held!
Just because something is legal does not mean it is either right or wise.
Suicide is legal but it is not something I would advocate or pursue. Revocation, either with or without a referendum is democracy committing suicide.
Democracy being murdered you mean
It really isn't, it is a silly and nasty little ad hoc suspension of the rules of our representative democracy by the most stupid and selfish man ever to be Prime Minister being treated with the respect it deserves.
Your position seems curiously incoherent. In my view direct democracy sucks in itself (it is how Socrates got murdered) and even if it didn't, it sucks to try to introduce it into a different method of government without adequate, or indeed any, thought being given to how it is going to fit. If you disagree, surely you see democracy being murdered every day with every Queen's Speech and budget and statute and prerogative act not directly based on therwilloftherpeople as determined by referendum. Why are you not outraged?
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
I dont agree.
I cannot understand the Brexit psychosis. Rational people have become advocates of implementing the worse deal possible. What has happened to these people?
Very simple: Brexiteers feel British identity and sovereignty is threatened by the EU, like a slowly boiling frog.
The EU does very very little to assuage these fears.
So here we are.
It's not a valid fear, but even if it was, fuck it. Let it boil. Culture is choice. If exposure to other cultures means we end up eating paella, speaking multiple languages, enjoying German opera and Danish beer, it's because we have grown to like those things better than pasties, monolingualism, Billie Piper and Carling.
The good bits of our culture will get picked up by others, too.
What a thing to get worked up about. What a blinkered view of the world.
Moronic comment. Posts like this really piss me off. They reek of snobbery and contempt. Despite the fact your comment is cliched shite that bears no resemblance to reality (except the more varied diet we now enjoy) there is nothing wrong with patriotism and British identity, just as there isn’t with those of other nations. There’s nothing blinkered or exclusive about it.
People are fundamentally emotional. Identity is very important to them. The EU has continually shat on this with its Ever Closer Union and federalist scope creep. Its been imposed, by treaty by design.
You threaten people’s identities, and you will reap the whirlwind.
You seem perfectly relaxed about threatening the identities of those who identify with Europe.
No-one wants to be where we are. What about this as an analysis of the future possibilities.
1 There are only two outcomes: remain and leave. So fundamentally there are only two sides. Very few people who know what they are doing want No Deal. This includes most senior Tories. In particular the Tories don't want No Deal at any time when a GE can be called at any time by their enemies, just when the M20 is a lorry park.
2 Therefore as things stand No Deal is not an option for Boris as it places him in the hands of his enemies to calla GE at the worst time for him.
3 Fortunately he can and will avoid No Deal while blaming parliament and his enemies (The Benn Act).
4 Boris can only achieve what he wants - a deal - once he has won an election and can dish the DUP. NI as a whole is desperate to retain its economic links with RoI. Once the DUP is dished a slightly revised and reheated TM deal makes best sense.
5 Remain can only achieve what it wants by the passage of time + winning an election.
6 Therefore both sides have to have an election but there is no chance that Boris's enemies will grant him one until they think they can win it; and they can stop him having one (extraordinary though it is) until 2022.
7 So there is a good case for an election being a long way away.
That’s partly why I’m betting against an early election.
The current national rolling polls show a virtual dead-heat between the Liberals and Conservatives with the latter between 0.2 and 0.5% ahead while the weekly Ipsos poll turned a 3% Conservative lead into a 1% Liberal lead.
We've also had a Quebec poll - the province has 78 ridings so just under a quarter of the total. in 2015, Trudeau's Liberals won 40 seats on 36% of the vote with the NDP winning 16 seats, the Conservatives 12 and Bloc Quebecois (BQ) 10 seats.
The current poll shows the Liberals on 35% (-1) with BQ on 27% (+8), the Conservatives on 17% (nc), NDP on 11% (-14) and the Greens on 7% (+5). It looks a question of how many of the 16 NDP seats will fall and to whom with BQ also set to make gains while both Liberals and Conservatives may fall back slightly.
I'd still argue the Liberals as largest party but short of a majority looks the likeliest outcome with the Conservatives a close second.
Yes it looks like Trudeau will lose his majority but stay leader of the largest party, just and remain PM propped up by the NDP and BQ
I think the Liberals will tick up in the final week.
The Canadian political environment isn’t particularly favourable to the Conservatives at the moment, and Doug Ford is a problem for them in Ontario.
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
I dont agree.
I cannot understand the Brexit psychosis. Rational people have become advocates of implementing the worse deal possible. What has happened to these people?
Very simple: Brexiteers feel British identity and sovereignty is threatened by the EU, like a slowly boiling frog.
The EU does very very little to assuage these fears.
So here we are.
It's not a valid fear, but even if it was, fuck it. Let it boil. Culture is choice. If exposure to other cultures means we end up eating paella, speaking multiple languages, enjoying German opera and Danish beer, it's because we have grown to like those things better than pasties, monolingualism, Billie Piper and Carling.
The good bits of our culture will get picked up by others, too.
What a thing to get worked up about. What a blinkered view of the world.
Moronic comment. Posts like this really piss me off. They reek of snobbery and contempt. Despite the fact your comment is cliched shite that bears no resemblance to reality (except the more varied diet we now enjoy) there is nothing wrong with patriotism and British identity, just as there isn’t with those of other nations. There’s nothing blinkered or exclusive about it.
People are fundamentally emotional. Identity is very important to them. The EU has continually shat on this with its Ever Closer Union and federalist scope creep. Its been imposed, by treaty by design.
You threaten people’s identities, and you will reap the whirlwind.
You seem perfectly relaxed about threatening the identities of those who identify with Europe.
I disagree, many people wanted and want to be where we are right now - people who want no deal, people who want to revoke, people who want to remain, people who want the May deal despite it being rejected multiple times; all of these, and likely more, wanted victory and that victory requires a massive deadlock and utter chaos and panic. No deal and revoke in particular could not have gotten the support for that position they now have unless we got to this point through stubborness and brinkmanship, it is exactly where a lot of people want us to be.
If people actually wanted to simply avoid no deal, or wanted to simply take any form of remaining off the table, then the WA would have passed by now.
As to your wider point there is a case for why an election could be a long way away, but as much as the EU letting do nothing for months and still preferring an extension is indeed a thing, and as much as we can get by with a zombie parliament a surprisingly long time, there are things that need doing and I don't know that they can all collectively stretch things out so long, even if it is in their best interests. People do things against their best interests all the time.
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
I dont agree.
I cannot understand the Brexit psychosis. Rational people have become advocates of implementing the worse deal possible. What has happened to these people?
Very simple: Brexiteers feel British identity and sovereignty is threatened by the EU, like a slowly boiling frog.
The EU does very very little to assuage these fears.
So here we are.
It's not a valid fear, but even if it was, fuck it. Let it boil. Culture is choice. If exposure to other cultures means we end up eating paella, speaking multiple languages, enjoying German opera and Danish beer, it's because we have grown to like those things better than pasties, monolingualism, Billie Piper and Carling.
The good bits of our culture will get picked up by others, too.
What a thing to get worked up about. What a blinkered view of the world.
Moronic comment. Posts like this really piss me off. They reek of snobbery and contempt. Despite the fact your comment is cliched shite that bears no resemblance to reality (except the more varied diet we now enjoy) there is nothing wrong with patriotism and British identity, just as there isn’t with those of other nations. There’s nothing blinkered or exclusive about it.
People are fundamentally emotional. Identity is very important to them. The EU has continually shat on this with its Ever Closer Union and federalist scope creep. Its been imposed, by treaty by design.
You threaten people’s identities, and you will reap the whirlwind.
"People are fundamentally emotional" - well this is certainly a very emotional post! I think you'll soon discover that both sides can get emotional, both sides have identities that are being threatened, the whirlwind will be indiscriminate.
Who are the 31% under the impression that Johnson “has a deal”?
Doesn't this reflect the news flow of a few days ago when the Westminster bubble was convinced that Johnson had negotiated a fantastic deal, before anyone thought to ask what the other European countries thought about it?
Yes everyone had forgotten how inflexible the EU was.
Who are the 31% under the impression that Johnson “has a deal”?
Doesn't this reflect the news flow of a few days ago when the Westminster bubble was convinced that Johnson had negotiated a fantastic deal, before anyone thought to ask what the other European countries thought about it?
Yes everyone had forgotten how inflexible the EU was.
How loyal to its members the EU was, I think you mean.
I have to say, the more I hear about Trudeau, the more loathsome he seems. I never knew very much about him hut if what's come out in the last few weeks is in any way accurate this is a man who is unfit to be Clerk to Claresholm Town Council.
He's a luvvie - all sins are automatically forgiven. Get with the programme.
Can someone explain why two weeks ago prorogation was a constitutional coup with an "extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy" but today no one gives a damn? What vital work on Brexit was Parliament able to do in its extra sitting days as a result? Or was it all just a sham and excuse for grandstanding by the Supreme Court?
So as I return from our 24 day trans Atlantic cruise having enjoyed clear blue skies at all our ports, dined on the open deck as we slipped moorings in Manhattan and sailed away in the early evening experiencing NewYork in all it's splendour and then in contrast as we sailed to Newport, Boston, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the most glorious 'fall colours', I see that Boris is confounding his critics and is causing those who want to remain a real nervous breakdown.
The 11 sea days we had rather reflected brexit with calm seas giving way to storm force and ever deepening lows, fierce thunder storms with lightining shooting down the side of the dining room windows and then, to cap it all, and so in tune with Brexit, we entered the deepest impenetrable fog as we entered the English channel with the constant ship's fog horn making it difficult to catch sleep
All in all 8,500 miles of fun and enjoyment on a ship with virtually 95% British passengers (unusual in itself) and no one talked of Brexit at all
And for those who like trivia the head chef informed us yesterday they prepare over 22,000 meals every day, year after year, with no exceptions, for the 4,000 plus passengers and crew
Pleased to be back and hope to contribute from time to time
Parliament is soverign where as advisory referendum are not!
Like I said keep deluding yourself. The narrative will be.one of complete betrayal and you Remaniacs will own that
Delusion is one thing, I could give you insight into that! Actual legal basis and the fundamental basis of law is another. I dont have a problem with a deal as you advocate but i cannot see it happening under BJ! I dont think No Deal is democratically the way to go unless a. confirmatory vote is held!
Just because something is legal does not mean it is either right or wise.
Suicide is legal but it is not something I would advocate or pursue. Revocation, either with or without a referendum is democracy committing suicide.
I hope nobody kills themselves over Brexit!
Many people were for it but you have to remeber many were against as it removed rights!
You like Brexit because it fit your world view! There are others it did not!
EU citizenship was imposed on me agsinst my will. Anyone who wishes to remain an EU citizen can do it by becoming a citizen of one of the other EU countries. Ghey wouldn't even have to give up British citizenship. But I cannot did myself of EU citizenship without discarding my British citizenship as well. Do please stop whining.
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
I dont agree.
I cannot understand the Brexit psychosis. Rational people have become advocates of implementing the worse deal possible. What has happened to these people?
Very simple: Brexiteers feel British identity and sovereignty is threatened by the EU, like a slowly boiling frog.
The EU does very very little to assuage these fears.
So here we are.
It's not a valid fear, but even if it was, fuck it. Let it boil. Culture is choice. If exposure to other cultures means we end up eating paella, speaking multiple languages, enjoying German opera and Danish beer, it's because we have grown to like those things better than pasties, monolingualism, Billie Piper and Carling.
The good bits of our culture will get picked up by others, too.
What a thing to get worked up about. What a blinkered view of the world.
Moronic comment. Posts like this really piss me off. They reek of snobbery and contempt. Despite the fact your comment is cliched shite that bears no resemblance to reality (except the more varied diet we now enjoy) there is nothing wrong with patriotism and British identity, just as there isn’t with those of other nations. There’s nothing blinkered or exclusive about it.
People are fundamentally emotional. Identity is very important to them. The EU has continually shat on this with its Ever Closer Union and federalist scope creep. Its been imposed, by treaty by design.
You threaten people’s identities, and you will reap the whirlwind.
"People are fundamentally emotional" - well this is certainly a very emotional post! I think you'll soon discover that both sides can get emotional, both sides have identities that are being threatened, the whirlwind will be indiscriminate.
Of course. I explained how Brexiteers might feel about it. He was totally contemptuous of mine. That’s how this works.
Why should that be a surprise?
The solution to this is to address the heart not the head. Both sides keep trying to out head each other whilst insulting the heart.
Can someone explain why two weeks ago prorogation was a constitutional coup with an "extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy" but today no one gives a damn? What vital work on Brexit was Parliament able to do in its extra sitting days as a result? Or was it all just a sham and excuse for grandstanding by the Supreme Court?
Length of prorogation and reason for it. The SC were absolutely right and prevented Johnson setting a very dangerous precedent - or rather continuing one already started by Atlee and Major.
So we can now be pretty certain that no election will occur before 28th November. Even that assumes a VNOC passed circa 22nd October and an attempt by Johnson to call an election via a 2/3 majority. Failing that , we are looking at 5th December - or 12th December.
The Chronicle is unable to evaluate the veracity of widespread rumors that Trudeau regularly received fellatio from students while on the private school’s campus.
This phrase is almost artistic in terms of getting the story out while disclaiming any responsibility for it...
As their teacher? He must resign if so. As a student? Good luck to him.
...or I could just read the link. Teacher. That's vile if true.
Wow. If that is as indicated, surely he would face criminal charges?
Not sure what the law would have been like back then. If it wasn't illegal then, it ought to have been.
In the U.K., the law raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 where there was a relationship of trust was the Sexual Offences Act 2000. Until then, a sexual relationship between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old pupil wasn’t actually illegal.
Can someone explain why two weeks ago prorogation was a constitutional coup with an "extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy" but today no one gives a damn? What vital work on Brexit was Parliament able to do in its extra sitting days as a result? Or was it all just a sham and excuse for grandstanding by the Supreme Court?
I don't about the Supreme Court but it was all a sham and excuse for grandstanding by politicians.
Hang on, I thought the EU agreed to work to find a sensible permanent solution to the challenge of the customs border in NI back in March, and the backstop was just a backstop.
Turns out it was just the answer, fullstop, all along?
In which case: bad faith.
Which would make it a good job we didn't ratify May's Deal which has no unilateral exit ...
That said, there is always a certain kind of unilateral exit.
We could just do a UDI, and repeal all laws that bind us, and dare the EU to invade us to reverse it.
Not pretty, but it would work.
Snowball's chance in hell that Parliament would ever do that though. So if you don't want this to be permanent don't ratify it. Which was obvious to me all along and why I'm glad that May's Deal was never ratified.
The Chronicle is unable to evaluate the veracity of widespread rumors that Trudeau regularly received fellatio from students while on the private school’s campus.
This phrase is almost artistic in terms of getting the story out while disclaiming any responsibility for it...
As their teacher? He must resign if so. As a student? Good luck to him.
...or I could just read the link. Teacher. That's vile if true.
Wow. If that is as indicated, surely he would face criminal charges?
Not sure what the law would have been like back then. If it wasn't illegal then, it ought to have been.
In the U.K., the law raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 where there was a relationship of trust was the Sexual Offences Act 2000. Until then, a sexual relationship between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old pupil wasn’t actually illegal.
Why do you know that in so much detail 😉
Because I’m pretty good at quick research, and knew it was a relatively recent change in the law.
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
What utter crap. You really have lost your marbles if you think David Gauke, Amber Rudd, and Phil Hammond are 'Europhile headbangers'.
Depends whether you see the bigger picture or not.
To compound that, they kept on promising referendums, and then kept denying them, such that the democratic resentment of the EU just grew and grew, until the moment when Cameron tried - too late - to "safely" vent some of this steam, and instead the whole machine blew up, destroying everything.
So, in the grander scheme, the europhile bigwigs (left and right) are entirely to blame. Their lies, cant and deceit got us here, and it is good they are now suffering in exile. Indeed, it is one of few upsides to this whole sorry story.
More rewriting of history, I see. One referendum was promised on the EU Constitution. That was withdrawn when the Dutch and French voted against and the Constitution died. No referendum was promised on the Lisbon Treaty by Labour and, by the time Cameron came to power in 2010, it would have been pointless as the treaty had been ratified.
But we are repeatedly told that FoM was the reason for Brexit and that was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty on which no referendum was ever promised. Furthermore that treaty passed through our sovereign Parliament and the public then voted three times for a Labour government which was all in favour of it instead of a Tory party which was even then turning ever more eurosceptic.
Possibly the public were fed up with the huge increase in immigration which occurred from 1997 onwards. But most of that was not from the EU and was well within Britain’s control. It was successfully exploited by the Leave campaign which concentrated on migration from Turkey and Syria, neither of which are within the EU.
So no the europhile bigwigs are not entirely to blame. Those who failed to control migration intelligently, those who failed to think about whether a largely non-contributory welfare system was fit for purpose in a world very different from the 1940’s and those who whipped up and exploited fear of dark-skinnned foreigners bear a considerable share of the responsibility.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
Question for you - answer to inform my betting.
If we get a GE, will the Tory manifesto Brexit position be a pure and simple leave asap with No Deal?
Or will it be fudged up with the possibility of trying one last time to get a Deal but leave with No Deal if that effort fails?
(Perhaps with the spin that the 'Surrender Act' screwed Johnson's negotiating position this time, so without that, with No Deal back as a credible threat, he remains confident that a Deal is on.)
Keen to be able to predict this because I think it could potentially make a difference to the GE outcome.
It will be leave with No Deal unless the EU back down on the backstop (though if the Tories do win a majority I suspect Boris would just remove the GB backstop and let Northern Ireland voters decide by referendum on the NI backstop to get a Deal )
What exactly is prohibiting him from doing it now?
Again, he has been actively encouraged to do so.
As the DUP will veto it
Does the DUP still hold a veto in a situation where his parliamentary majority stands at -43 (or whatever it is today) ?
He would have to win votes from the sensible moderates anyway.
Yes it does as it would need at least 10 to 20 Labour MPs to vote for it if the DUP does not and probably more given not every one of the 21 Tory anti No Deal MPs or the ERG would vote for even a NI only backstop WA
Maybe observing British politics from afar is clouding my view too much, but I find it virtually inconceivable that it should not be possible to find two dozen moderate, sensible, responsible MPs of any colour who are prepared to put the stability and security of NI before any other considerations.
You've spent too long reading PB.
Despite all the arguments and abuse which breaks out here we are an oasis of good sense and moderation compared to our politicians.
The problem is a professor can have an affair with a 19 year old student and not do anything illegal but a teacher can have an affair with an 18 year old pupil and face criminal charges. Why is that fair? 16 or under prosecute fine, 17+ leave the police out of it unless it was clearly rape.
That's just the nature of the criminal law, though. One side of the line may be heavily frowned upon but is legal, the other is criminal.
There isn't really any avoiding that - you can't have a grey area where the person is found guilty if the whole thing is sufficiently "icky".
In your example, I don't really see that it's a "fairness" point. The teacher can't argue that he shouldn't be convicted because the professor has done something "similar" or "nearly as bad". He may feel he and the professor were both close to the line, but the crucial difference is he stepped over it. And maybe the law ought also to catch the professor, but if so that doesn't help the teacher one bit - you just have to decide whether 19 year olds at university need equivalent protection to 18 year olds at school, or whether it's no longer required.
Further, shifting the line just shifts the issue somewhere else if you pursue the fairness argument - "why's it fair that the professor having an affair with a 22 year old graduate student is okay, but not the one having an affair with a 21 year old undergraduate?"
To take an analogy, if person A is fractionally over the drink drive limit, he'll be convicted of drink driving whereas person B who is fractionally below won't. It could come down to person B being physically bigger, or leaving it two minutes longer or whatever. It isn't a "fairness" matter - person A was over the limit and whether person B was a bit lucky is neither here nor there.
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
I dont agree.
I cannot understand the Brexit psychosis. Rational people have become advocates of implementing the worse deal possible. What has happened to these people?
Very simple: Brexiteers feel British identity and sovereignty is threatened by the EU, like a slowly boiling frog.
Leavers understood that the sovereignty that the European Communities Act and subsequent EU treaties had ceded could be got back by leaving the EU. What they didn't understand was that the Good Friday Agreement with another EU member state had also ceded sovereignty. And there is no analogue to an "Article 50" route available for a British withdrawal from the GFA.
NI must stay in the SM and CU because otherwise there would have to be border checks, which would be in breach of the GFA. Talk of technological solutions and arguments over whether a border counts as a border if it's in a warehouse are cack. Since the GFA signatories won't all agree to meet on the Isle of Man and burn what they signed, Britain has three options: 1) renege on the GFA; 2) revoke, or 3) agree a BINO. A hard Brexit and a crashout count under 1). Unfortunately exactly none of the political parties, and so far none of the 28 governments, and no EU institution, has had the guts to say this.
Its very simple - if the British dont put up border posts then they are not in breach of the GFA.
Will Varadker though?
In the event of a hard Brexit by agreement or crashout, he would have to, to honour Ireland's EU treaty obligations. Acting unilaterally (and not under force majeure, because the EUref was advisory) to give a party you've signed an agreement with no other lawful option than breaking the agreement is a breach of the agreement.
A big irony is that people in NI have a right to retain EU citizenship (by applying for RoI passports) under any form of Brexit.
No deal is a lie in itself. it's no-deal for now and there'll be decades of negotiations eventually ending somewhere near TMs deal.
It means leaving the EU without a deal. If you want to buy a new outfit you don't walk naked to the shops in winter.
That, with respect, is meaningless twaddle.
no-deal means that we will still have to trade with the EU and they will expect the £39Bn to be paid. They will also expect the NI border to be dealt with early on. Also with citizens rights. Even if we have left with no-deal these things will still be the first things on the table and we will need to have a free trade agreement in the long run so regardless of what happens in the next couple of weeks we will need to deal with them.
thinking that we won't is naive in the extreme. and not doing a FTA is not possible long term.
11bn gets paid not 39bn
Citizens rights we have offered unilaterally
Backstop doesn’t happen - solution is an FTA to remove the need
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
What utter crap. You really have lost your marbles if you think David Gauke, Amber Rudd, and Phil Hammond are 'Europhile headbangers'.
Depends whether you see the bigger picture or not.
So, in the grander scheme, the europhile bigwigs (left and right) are entirely to blame. Their lies, cant and deceit got us here, and it is good they are now suffering in exile. Indeed, it is one of few upsides to this whole sorry story.
More rewriting of history, I see. One referendum was promised on the EU Constitution. That was withdrawn when the Dutch and French voted against and the Constitution died. No referendum was promised on the Lisbon Treaty by Labour and, by the time Cameron came to power in 2010, it would have been pointless as the treaty had been ratified.
But we are repeatedly told that FoM was the reason for Brexit and that was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty on which no referendum was ever promised. Furthermore that treaty passed through our sovereign Parliament and the public then voted three times for a Labour government which was all in favour of it instead of a Tory party which was even then turning ever more eurosceptic.
Possibly the public were fed up with the huge increase in immigration which occurred from 1997 onwards. But most of that was not from the EU and was well within Britain’s control. It was successfully exploited by the Leave campaign which concentrated on migration from Turkey and Syria, neither of which are within the EU.
So no the europhile bigwigs are not entirely to blame. Those who failed to control migration intelligently, those who failed to think about whether a largely non-contributory welfare system was fit for purpose in a world very different from the 1940’s and those who whipped up and exploited fear of dark-skinnned foreigners bear a considerable share of the responsibility.
No, I’m with SeanT on that.
The Lisbon Treaty was substantially the same as the EU constitution, so there was a moral commitment to hold a vote on what was a very similar step-change.
Parliament is soverign where as advisory referendum are not!
Like I said keep deluding yourself. The narrative will be.one of complete betrayal and you Remaniacs will own that
Delusion is one thing, I could give you insight into that! Actual legal basis and the fundamental basis of law is another. I dont have a problem with a deal as you advocate but i cannot see it happening under BJ! I dont think No Deal is democratically the way to go unless a. confirmatory vote is held!
Just because something is legal does not mean it is either right or wise.
Suicide is legal but it is not something I would advocate or pursue. Revocation, either with or without a referendum is democracy committing suicide.
I hope nobody kills themselves over Brexit!
Many people were for it but you have to remeber many were against as it removed rights!
You like Brexit because it fit your world view! There are others it did not!
EU citizenship was imposed on me agsinst my will. Anyone who wishes to remain an EU citizen can do it by becoming a citizen of one of the other EU countries. Ghey wouldn't even have to give up British citizenship. But I cannot did myself of EU citizenship without discarding my British citizenship as well. Do please stop whining.
You do realise that technically nobody is an "EU Citizen"? This is just shorthand for being a "citizen of a country which is in the EU". So you have just said that your British Citizenship was imposed on you against you will.
As for your second point: the conditions of becoming a citizen of an EU country depends on the country in question and most (?all) impose a minimum period of residency unless you apply through marriage, and this minimum time is longer than the time elapsed since the referendum.
Once the UK is out of the EU the UK citizens gaining German citizenship will have to give up their UK citizenship (there will be a period of grace up until the end of 2020 if there is a deal, no period of grace if there is no deal). Germany only accepts dual citizenship for minors living in Germany and citizens of EU countries.
So the problem of voter anger is going to get worse not better. It's just that this time the angry people will be the young, city dwellers and the well educated, and each of those groups is in a far better position to make their anger felt. I just hope the Brexiteers are ready for it.
I would rather see anger at democracy being respected than anger at democracy being cheated.
You may well get both: anger at the vote being respected when people realise that what they were promised doesn’t materialise and they were cheated.
If Matthias turns out to be a(nother) SeanT pseudonym I shall be very disappointed.
It would be a fantastic joke if it turns out that nearly all the posters are in fact one of SeanT’s many pseudonyms and PB is in fact Sean speaking mostly to himself.
If Matthias turns out to be a(nother) SeanT pseudonym I shall be very disappointed.
It would be a fantastic joke if it turns out that nearly all the posters are in fact one of SeanT’s many pseudonyms and PB is in fact Sean speaking mostly to himself.
Parliament is soverign where as advisory referendum are not!
Like I said keep deluding yourself. The narrative will be.one of complete betrayal and you Remaniacs will own that
Delusion is one thing, I could give you insight into that! Actual legal basis and the fundamental basis of law is another. I dont have a problem with a deal as you advocate but i cannot see it happening under BJ! I dont think No Deal is democratically the way to go unless a. confirmatory vote is held!
Just because something is legal does not mean it is either right or wise.
Suicide is legal but it is not something I would advocate or pursue. Revocation, either with or without a referendum is democracy committing suicide.
Democracy being murdered you mean
It really isn't, it is a silly and nasty little ad hoc suspension of the rules of our representative democracy by the most stupid and selfish man ever to be Prime Minister being treated with the respect it deserves.
Your position seems curiously incoherent. In my view direct democracy sucks in itself (it is how Socrates got murdered) and even if it didn't, it sucks to try to introduce it into a different method of government without adequate, or indeed any, thought being given to how it is going to fit. If you disagree, surely you see democracy being murdered every day with every Queen's Speech and budget and statute and prerogative act not directly based on therwilloftherpeople as determined by referendum. Why are you not outraged?
Parliament has authority because it is the appointed representative of the people
On this issue parliament decided it was appropriate to seek instruction
In this case - revocation - they would have decided that they are more important than the source of their authority
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
What utter crap. You really have lost your marbles if you think David Gauke, Amber Rudd, and Phil Hammond are 'Europhile headbangers'.
Depends whether you see the bigger picture or not.
To compound that, they kept on promising referendums, and then kept denying them, such that the democratic resentment of the EU just grew and grew, until the moment when Cameron tried - too late - to "safely" vent some of this steam, and instead the whole machine blew up, destroying everything.
So, in the grander scheme, the europhile bigwigs (left and right) are entirely to blame. Their lies, cant and deceit got us here, and it is good they are now suffering in exile. Indeed, it is one of few upsides to this whole sorry story.
More rewriting of history, I see. One referendum was promised on the EU Constitution. That was withdrawn when the Dutch and French voted against and the Constitution died. No referendum was promised on the Lisbon Treaty by Labour and, by the time Cameron came to power in 2010, it would have been pointless as the treaty had been ratified.
But we are repeatedly told that FoM was the reason for Brexit and that was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty on which no referendum was ever promised. Furthermore that treaty passed through our sovereign Parliament and the public then voted three times for a Labour government which was all in favour of it instead of a Tory party which was even then turning ever more eurosceptic.
Possibly the public were fed up with the huge increase in immigration which occurred from 1997 onwards. But most of that was not from the EU and was well within Britain’s control. It was successfully exploited by the Leave campaign which concentrated on migration from Turkey and Syria, neither of which are within the EU.
So no the europhile bigwigs are not entirely to blame. Those who failed to control migration intelligently, those who failed to think about whether a largely non-contributory welfare system was fit for purpose in a world very different from the 1940’s and those who whipped up and exploited fear of dark-skinnned foreigners bear a considerable share of the responsibility.
They permanently gave away sovereignty when they were not authorised to do so.
I see Gauke has given up on returning to the Conservative Party then.....
In its current state? Of course he has. He's not a raving loon.
A handful of Europhile headbangers got it to that state.
They will not be missed.
What utter crap. You really have lost your marbles if you think David Gauke, Amber Rudd, and Phil Hammond are 'Europhile headbangers'.
Depends whether you see the bigger picture or not.
To compound that, they kept on promising referendums, and then kept denying them, such that the democratic resentment of the EU just grew and grew, until the moment when Cameron tried - too late - to "safely" vent some of this steam, and instead the whole machine blew up, destroying everything.
So, in the grander scheme, the europhile bigwigs (left and right) are entirely to blame. Their lies, cant and deceit got us here, and it is good they are now suffering in exile. Indeed, it is one of few upsides to this whole sorry story.
More rewriting of history, I see. One referendum was promised on the EU Constitution. That was withdrawn when the Dutch and French voted against and the Constitution died. No referendum was promised on the Lisbon Treaty by Labour and, by the time Cameron came to power in 2010, it would have been pointless as the treaty had been ratified.
But we are repeatedly told that FoM was the reason for Brexit and that was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty on which no referendum was ever promised. Furthermore that treaty passed through our sovereign Parliament and the public then voted three times for a Labour government which was all in favour of it instead of a Tory party which was even then turning ever more eurosceptic.
Possibly the public were fed up with the huge increase in immigration which occurred from 1997 onwards. But most of that was not from the EU and was well within Britain’s control. It was successfully exploited by the Leave campaign which concentrated on migration from Turkey and Syria, neither of which are within the EU.
So no the europhile bigwigs are not entirely to blame. Those who failed to control migration intelligently, those who failed to think about whether a largely non-contributory welfare system was fit for purpose in a world very different from the 1940’s and those who whipped up and exploited fear of dark-skinnned foreigners bear a considerable share of the responsibility.
LOL. Complains about the rewriting of history and then proceeds to do just that.
Parliament is soverign where as advisory referendum are not!
Like I said keep deluding yourself. The narrative will be.one of complete betrayal and you Remaniacs will own that
Delusion is one thing, I could give you insight into that! Actual legal basis and the fundamental basis of law is another. I dont have a problem with a deal as you advocate but i cannot see it happening under BJ! I dont think No Deal is democratically the way to go unless a. confirmatory vote is held!
Just because something is legal does not mean it is either right or wise.
Suicide is legal but it is not something I would advocate or pursue. Revocation, either with or without a referendum is democracy committing suicide.
I hope nobody kills themselves over Brexit!
Many people were for it but you have to remeber many were against as it removed rights!
You like Brexit because it fit your world view! There are others it did not!
EU citizenship was imposed on me agsinst my will. Anyone who wishes to remain an EU citizen can do it by becoming a citizen of one of the other EU countries. Ghey wouldn't even have to give up British citizenship. But I cannot did myself of EU citizenship without discarding my British citizenship as well. Do please stop whining.
You do realise that technically nobody is an "EU Citizen"? This is just shorthand for being a "citizen of a country which is in the EU". So you have just said that your British Citizenship was imposed on you against you will.
As for your second point: the conditions of becoming a citizen of an EU country depends on the country in question and most (?all) impose a minimum period of residency unless you apply through marriage, and this minimum time is longer than the time elapsed since the referendum.
Once the UK is out of the EU the UK citizens gaining German citizenship will have to give up their UK citizenship (there will be a period of grace up until the end of 2020 if there is a deal, no period of grace if there is no deal). Germany only accepts dual citizenship for minors living in Germany and citizens of EU countries.
If Matthias turns out to be a(nother) SeanT pseudonym I shall be very disappointed.
It would be a fantastic joke if it turns out that nearly all the posters are in fact one of SeanT’s many pseudonyms and PB is in fact Sean speaking mostly to himself.
Would make the next PB meet-up a bit pointless - after all, Sean can sit in the pub talking to himself any time he chooses.
Comments
Despite the standard age of consent being 16, anyone under 18 is still considered a child by the law. It’s an anomaly that has weird consequences, such as two people being allowed to have sex, but filming it themselves is a serious criminal offence that puts them on the sex offenders’ register. Personally I’d have a single ‘age of majority’ at 18.
A big irony is that people in NI have a right to retain EU citizenship (by applying for RoI passports) under any form of Brexit.
The same would in several universities apply to the professor now as well, although that's a comparatively recent development.
A tweet was drafted for Jeremy in light of the recent Russian bombing of hospitals in Idlib. The tweet condemned Syrian and US bombings in Syria (I kid you not)
https://order-order.com/2019/10/08/read-full-andrew-fishers-resignation-letter/
People are fundamentally emotional. Identity is very important to them. The EU has continually shat on this with its Ever Closer Union and federalist scope creep. Its been imposed, by treaty by design.
You threaten people’s identities, and you will reap the whirlwind.
1 There are only two outcomes: remain and leave. So fundamentally there are only two sides. Very few people who know what they are doing want No Deal. This includes most senior Tories. In particular the Tories don't want No Deal at any time when a GE can be called at any time by their enemies, just when the M20 is a lorry park.
2 Therefore as things stand No Deal is not an option for Boris as it places him in the hands of his enemies to calla GE at the worst time for him.
3 Fortunately he can and will avoid No Deal while blaming parliament and his enemies (The Benn Act).
4 Boris can only achieve what he wants - a deal - once he has won an election and can dish the DUP. NI as a whole is desperate to retain its economic links with RoI. Once the DUP is dished a slightly revised and reheated TM deal makes best sense.
5 Remain can only achieve what it wants by the passage of time + winning an election.
6 Therefore both sides have to have an election but there is no chance that Boris's enemies will grant him one until they think they can win it; and they can stop him having one (extraordinary though it is) until 2022.
7 So there is a good case for an election being a long way away.
A “range of dates” will now be in play at the meeting of European leaders next week but sources suggested the natural cut-off date would be June."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/08/eu-may-offer-to-extend-deadline-for-brexit-deal-to-summer
Your position seems curiously incoherent. In my view direct democracy sucks in itself (it is how Socrates got murdered) and even if it didn't, it sucks to try to introduce it into a different method of government without adequate, or indeed any, thought being given to how it is going to fit. If you disagree, surely you see democracy being murdered every day with every Queen's Speech and budget and statute and prerogative act not directly based on therwilloftherpeople as determined by referendum. Why are you not outraged?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/08/eu-may-offer-to-extend-deadline-for-brexit-deal-to-summer
The Canadian political environment isn’t particularly favourable to the Conservatives at the moment, and Doug Ford is a problem for them in Ontario.
My comment works both ways.
If people actually wanted to simply avoid no deal, or wanted to simply take any form of remaining off the table, then the WA would have passed by now.
As to your wider point there is a case for why an election could be a long way away, but as much as the EU letting do nothing for months and still preferring an extension is indeed a thing, and as much as we can get by with a zombie parliament a surprisingly long time, there are things that need doing and I don't know that they can all collectively stretch things out so long, even if it is in their best interests. People do things against their best interests all the time.
EDITED
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1181643063665532929
No they are just softening us up
The 11 sea days we had rather reflected brexit with calm seas giving way to storm force and ever deepening lows, fierce thunder storms with lightining shooting down the side of the dining room windows and then, to cap it all, and so in tune with Brexit, we entered the deepest impenetrable fog as we entered the English channel with the constant ship's fog horn making it difficult to catch sleep
All in all 8,500 miles of fun and enjoyment on a ship with virtually 95% British passengers (unusual in itself) and no one talked of Brexit at all
And for those who like trivia the head chef informed us yesterday they prepare over 22,000 meals every day, year after year, with no exceptions, for the 4,000 plus passengers and crew
Pleased to be back and hope to contribute from time to time
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/08/face-grab-photos-are-nonsense-says-ben-stokess-wife
Why should that be a surprise?
The solution to this is to address the heart not the head. Both sides keep trying to out head each other whilst insulting the heart.
But we are repeatedly told that FoM was the reason for Brexit and that was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty on which no referendum was ever promised. Furthermore that treaty passed through our sovereign Parliament and the public then voted three times for a Labour government which was all in favour of it instead of a Tory party which was even then turning ever more eurosceptic.
Possibly the public were fed up with the huge increase in immigration which occurred from 1997 onwards. But most of that was not from the EU and was well within Britain’s control. It was successfully exploited by the Leave campaign which concentrated on migration from Turkey and Syria, neither of which are within the EU.
So no the europhile bigwigs are not entirely to blame. Those who failed to control migration intelligently, those who failed to think about whether a largely non-contributory welfare system was fit for purpose in a world very different from the 1940’s and those who whipped up and exploited fear of dark-skinnned foreigners bear a considerable share of the responsibility.
Despite all the arguments and abuse which breaks out here we are an oasis of good sense and moderation compared to our politicians.
There isn't really any avoiding that - you can't have a grey area where the person is found guilty if the whole thing is sufficiently "icky".
In your example, I don't really see that it's a "fairness" point. The teacher can't argue that he shouldn't be convicted because the professor has done something "similar" or "nearly as bad". He may feel he and the professor were both close to the line, but the crucial difference is he stepped over it. And maybe the law ought also to catch the professor, but if so that doesn't help the teacher one bit - you just have to decide whether 19 year olds at university need equivalent protection to 18 year olds at school, or whether it's no longer required.
Further, shifting the line just shifts the issue somewhere else if you pursue the fairness argument - "why's it fair that the professor having an affair with a 22 year old graduate student is okay, but not the one having an affair with a 21 year old undergraduate?"
To take an analogy, if person A is fractionally over the drink drive limit, he'll be convicted of drink driving whereas person B who is fractionally below won't. It could come down to person B being physically bigger, or leaving it two minutes longer or whatever. It isn't a "fairness" matter - person A was over the limit and whether person B was a bit lucky is neither here nor there.
Failed to achieve a Deal.
Citizens rights we have offered unilaterally
Backstop doesn’t happen - solution is an FTA to remove the need
The Lisbon Treaty was substantially the same as the EU constitution, so there was a moral commitment to hold a vote on what was a very similar step-change.
The rest is political smoke and mirrors.
As for your second point: the conditions of becoming a citizen of an EU country depends on the country in question and most (?all) impose a minimum period of residency unless you apply through marriage, and this minimum time is longer than the time elapsed since the referendum.
Once the UK is out of the EU the UK citizens gaining German citizenship will have to give up their UK citizenship (there will be a period of grace up until the end of 2020 if there is a deal, no period of grace if there is no deal). Germany only accepts dual citizenship for minors living in Germany and citizens of EU countries.
It would be a fantastic joke if it turns out that nearly all the posters are in fact one of SeanT’s many pseudonyms and PB is in fact Sean speaking mostly to himself.
On this issue parliament decided it was appropriate to seek instruction
In this case - revocation - they would have decided that they are more important than the source of their authority
I had a similar situation last year. It only ended when I had a credible threat to walk away
https://twitter.com/adrianyalland/status/1181666922871607296?s=21
Edit.