A great leader isn't afraid to tell you the truth however unpaletable. Very few have done that in the last couple of years. Blair, Hesaltine, Ken Clark, Brown, Grieve, some of the Labour back bench. Not nearly enough though.I didn’t say ‘strong’ leader. That implies something a lot different
People want someone to stand up, sell them a vision and tell them what’s what. Say what you like about Thatcher and Blair but they had a position and people either liked it or didn’t like it - Corbyn changes his mind depending on the last person he spoke to
I accept that but it does not impact the validity of my comnentsYou chose to use the common market, I was showing ideologues were around when we joined, it is interesting from a historical context because that divide still remains. Especially when you choose Benn and Powell as they were representative of the extremes of the two main parties at the time but shared a common ideology.
And my point was if we had been more progressive in our involvement those treaties could have been arranged in a way to avoid those incremental increases towards federalisation, but we were not because our considered exceptionalist stance
Sensibly our sovereign Parliament rejected it - therefore they are describing it correctly“The un-democratic backstop” - do they think we are stupid?
1) it is obvious they have been told to use this line at every opportunity
2) our current PM voted for it
I didn’t say ‘strong’ leader. That implies something a lot different
There is plenty of evidence that what mere citizens think is of only minor interest to the idealogues and has no meaningful impact on the progress to implement the project
AbsoutelyAbsolutely, Foot and Peter Shore were superb and made a great case for leave and yes a street ahead of the likes of Farage et al.
Pointless post. It's now about stopping the damage, not letting it happen then putting it right.You can campaign to rejoin
Then leaving itself is undemocratic as Parliament has not actually voted for it. (They voted to give the PM the authority to trigger Article 50 but everything else has been voted down.)Sensibly our sovereign Parliament rejected it - therefore they are describing it correctly
Pointless post. It's now about stopping the damage, not letting it happen then putting it right.
Cliff, ambulance, fence.
That would be Leave.eu and Vote Leave who subverted democracy by flagrantly breaching electoral rules in the run up to the referendum.Those amongst who think they can ignore our democracy need to be stopped.
That would be Leave.eu and Vote Leave who subverted democracy by flagrantly breaching electoral rules in the run up to the referendum.
You don't agree that Leave.eu and Vote Leave broke electoral rules?We very obviously dont and never will agree.
You don't agree that Leave.eu and Vote Leave broke electoral rules?
Wonder why they got fined.
No I accept that, however the Remain fines were tiny and were for technical breaches of rules relating to not submitting expenses in time or getting a process wrong whereas the Leave fines were much larger and for much more serious misdemeanors.Probably in much the same way you refuse to accept that remain campaigns where also found to have breached rules and fined.
No I accept that, however the Remain fines were tiny and were for technical breaches of rules relating to not submitting expenses in time or getting a process wrong whereas the Leave fines were much larger and for much more serious misdemeanors.
Those who pretend the referendum campaign was in any slight way "democratic"need to be educated in the meaning of the word . We won you lost all over again .Those amongst who think they can ignore our democracy need to be stopped.
Those who pretend the referendum campaign was in any slight way "democratic"need to be educated in the meaning of the word . We won you lost all over again .
Revoke ffs revoke and go full federal ,euro and all.
That would be the electoral commission.Thankfully you're not judge and jury.
So has all this resulted in the referendum result being declared null and void?That would be the electoral commission.
They said this about Vote Leave:
"The Electoral Commission has followed the evidence and conducted a thorough investigation into spending and campaigning carried out by Vote Leave and BeLeave. We found substantial evidence that the two groups worked to a common plan, did not declare their joint working and did not adhere to the legal spending limits. These are serious breaches of the laws put in place by Parliament to ensure fairness and transparency at elections and referendums. Our findings relate primarily to the organisation which put itself forward as fit to be the designated campaigner for the ‘leave’ outcome.
Commenting on the investigation itself, Bob Posner continued:
Vote Leave has resisted our investigation from the start, including contesting our right as the statutory regulator to open the investigation. It has refused to cooperate, refused our requests to put forward a representative for interview, and forced us to use our legal powers to compel it to provide evidence. Nevertheless, the evidence we have found is clear and substantial, and can now be seen in our report."
and this about Leave.eu:
"The rules we enforce were put in place by Parliament to ensure transparency and public confidence in our democratic processes. It is therefore disappointing that Leave.EU, a key player in the EU referendum, was unable to abide by these rules. Leave.EU exceeded its spending limit and failed to declare its funding and its spending correctly. These are serious offences. The level of fine we have imposed has been constrained by the cap on the Commission’s fines."
That was before the latest revelations in the last week proving that Cambridge Analytica carried out services for Leave.eu without it being declared.
For consistency here's what they said about the Remain misdemeanors:
"The reporting requirements for parties and campaigners at referendums and elections are clear, that’s why it is disappointing that the Liberal Democrats didn’t follow them correctly. The major political parties must ensure their internal governance is sufficiently invested in and resourced so they can be sure of meeting their legal obligations. Where the rules are not followed, transparency is lost which is not in the public interest or as parliament intended"
Comparing Leave's rule breaking with Remain's is like comparing armed robbery to pinching a couple of sweets from the pick n mix at Woolies.
So has all this resulted in the referendum result being declared null and void?
I see we're back to hearing the bad loser foot stamps again.