Boris and the burka

[Chris Wilson]

I think voters are nowadays quite amenable to those that have red blooded shenanigans with opposite sex partners becoming PM, but probably draw the line at cocaine fuelled unprotected homosexual orgies with eastern European rent boys in a property for which the cash available for its purchase is unexplained and allegedly bought as sex retreat. Vaz managed to be enrolled on the Justice Select Committee after these allegations, so it's not a game STOPPER, (and probably he used the fact MP's did not want to start a precedent by vetoing his enrolment) but I would suggest any aspirations to become PM are now at absolute zero Being on the Justice Select Committee after his history of dodgy dealings is disgusting enough.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

I think voters are nowadays quite amenable to those that have red blooded shenanigans with opposite sex partners becoming PM, but probably draw the line at cocaine fuelled unprotected homosexual orgies with eastern European rent boys in a property for which the cash available for its purchase is unexplained and allegedly bought as sex retreat. Vaz managed to be enrolled on the Justice Select Committee after these allegations, so it's not a game STOPPER, (and probably he used the fact MP's did not want to start a precedent by vetoing his enrolment) but I would suggest any aspirations to become PM are now at absolute zero Being on the Justice Select Committee after his history of dodgy dealings is disgusting enough.

"If we start sacking people for funneling public funds into debauched cocaine fuelled orgies then who the hell will be left to run the Country?"

Generally speaking though I think you're right, I know it's a different electorate but didn't Clinton's approval rating increase in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal?

 

[RaohNS]

Good point, look at how senile Trump is at 72.

Trump Derangement Syndrome strikes again.

I've no idea I've not read a newspaper in years, far too much nonsense in them.

Boris is just a mess, the man is embarrassing!

Last line, it's all we need to take away.

 

[chroniclard]

TDS vs TARD.

 

[Destination]

Plenty of people or it wouldn't be splashed all over the papers!

is this just the break up?
Was there something about a love child from an affair, is this new or something from ages ago?
I haven't really followed.

- edit
I did some reading, so he has a love child from one of his affairs.
One of his other 4 year long affairs resulted in 2 pregnancies, one was terminated with an abortion, the other led to miscarriage.

 

[FoxEye]

I think that is the crux of where I disagree.

In the absence of definitive proof one way or the other it only makes logical sense to obtain relevant evidence, i.e. conduct a referendum on what is actually on offer.

Anything less and you might as well dispense with the pretence that you're trying to enact the will of the people because you're just doing what you want and pretending that a referendum on a different offer is relevant.

The things that got the most attention in the referendum were stopping immigration (which isn't really on offer) and adding £400M a week to the NHS budget (which isn't really on offer).

A majority of the people voted (on the day) to leave the EU. That's not being challenged as far as I know.

Anything which could reasonably considered a "but" clause ("We're leaving the EU, but...") is effectively against the spirit of the referendum.

"The people" might not have voted on a precise interpretation of the phrase "leaving the EU", but they did vote to leave the EU.

In my mind that means we need to err on the side of a clean break, if we wish to honour the referendum result.

e: Just to be clear, this is assuming no 2nd referendum. I completely accept that a clarification of the people's wishes via a 2nd referendum has some merit. But the question would have to be much more specific. Either "Do you want this precise deal we're offering" or "Precisely what kind of an arrangement to you want?"

Another "Shall we leave, then?" vague question would not be appropriate.

 

[adidan]

We are seeing the fruition of Boris having Steve Bannon whispering sweet nothings in his ear.

He's best ignored.

 

[RaohNS]

The problem being Foxeye there would be a plethora of items to be clarified. What each person wants would be different person to person.

The referendum was to Leave (some people disagree with the definition of Leave and should take it up with Websters/Oxford/Collins/Google) and that is rightly to ensure a democratic vote is carried out properly in accordance with the wishes of the majority. That's how democracy works.

 

[Destination]

It was a 'non-binding' referendum wasn't it?
Given that you are going to dictionary definitions of words and processes of democracy and all.

 

[stockhausen]

I think voters are nowadays quite amenable to those that have red blooded shenanigans with opposite sex partners becoming PM [SNIP]

I think the issue here is what Bonker Boris' persistent infidelity, casual cheating on his wife of 25 years and pathological selfishness says about his trustworthiness which when allied to his Islamophobia make him unsuitable for any public office.

I believe that Bonker Boris first wife once taught art to young Muslims at the Forest Gate Minhaj-Ul-Quran Mosque in East London mosque and is now married to a Muslim - perhaps that is what unhinged him?

 

[RaohNS]

It was a 'non-binding' referendum wasn't it?
Given that you are going to dictionary definitions of words and processes of democracy and all.

Typical remainer, pulling every trick.

"The government will enact the will of the people in the outcome of the referendum".

Not, the government "might" "could do" "will think of it". We knew it was a referendum on our continued membership of the EU... End of. 2years later and still bleating about it

 

[stockhausen]

[SNIP]
"The government will enact the will of the people in the outcome of the referendum".
[SNIP]

Believed to be a reference to the promise of £350 million for the NHS per week made by some Bonker who appears to have been shown to be a compulsive liar and utterly untrustworthy - perhaps it is time to ask the question again?

 

[adidan]

Typical remainer, pulling every trick.

"The government will enact the will of the people in the outcome of the referendum".

Not, the government "might" "could do" "will think of it". We knew it was a referendum on our continued membership of the EU... End of. 2years later and still bleating about it

There was a House of Lords committee inquiry in 2010 that concluded “because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory”.

That's not trickery it's just a fact.

I've never been a fan of referenda, for anything. Seeing throughout history the types of people who have been the biggest fans of them has always put me off.

 

[Angilion]

A majority of the people voted (on the day) to leave the EU. That's not being challenged as far as I know.

I'm challenging it on the basis that the voting was done on the basis of a deal that does not exist and never existed.

I think my earlier analogy to someone else on the same point stands:

The people spoke on something different to what's now being offered.

If I offer you £500 for a piece of hardware and you agree, then after the deal is done I tell you I'll only give you £200 for it would you consider yourself obliged to sell it to me for £200 because you agreed to the sale?

Anything which could reasonably considered a "but" clause ("We're leaving the EU, but...") is effectively against the spirit of the referendum.

"The people" might not have voted on a precise interpretation of the phrase "leaving the EU", but they did vote to leave the EU.

In my mind that means we need to err on the side of a clean break, if we wish to honour the referendum result.

In my mind it does not because the referendum was not on a clean break. In my mind your argument is an misuse of the referendum result by applying it to something else.

e: Just to be clear, this is assuming no 2nd referendum. I completely accept that a clarification of the people's wishes via a 2nd referendum has some merit. But the question would have to be much more specific. Either "Do you want this precise deal we're offering" or "Precisely what kind of an arrangement to you want?"

Another "Shall we leave, then?" vague question would not be appropriate.

That I agree with. What I disagree with is using the results of a referendum on one thing to support a different thing.

I think that the difference between the two things below is easily large enough for them to be considered different things and for a vote on one to be irrelevant to the other:

1) This deal is on offer [full details available, accurate summaries available]. Should this country accept this deal and be permanently bound by that acceptance?

2) An unspecified deal is on offer. You can't know the terms, not at all and not even in the most general way. Here are some lies about this deal that doesn't even exist yet. Should this country accept this deal and be permanently bound by that acceptance?

We had (2). I think we should have (1) so that there is at least some chance of people making an informed decision. I am certain that the results of (2) are irrelevant to (1).

 

[FrenchTart]

There is a Brexit thread. And it's not in GD.

 

[RaohNS]

It's in Space Space Corner

 

[Destination]

Indeed.

 

[dowie]

not wanting to discuss Brexit itself in here but re: 350 million a week to the NHS, it isn't really all that bonkers and can happen irrespective of Brexit:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/05...nhs-how-the-brexit-bus-pledge-is-coming-true/

Stevens is about to get what he demanded. Theresa May plans to give the NHS a present, ahead of its 70th birthday in July — a settlement of 3 per cent extra a year, which would mean that by the next election NHS spending would be £350 million a week more than it is today.

 

[garnett]

not wanting to discuss Brexit itself in here but re: 350 million a week to the NHS, it isn't really all that bonkers and can happen irrespective of Brexit:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/05...nhs-how-the-brexit-bus-pledge-is-coming-true/

"By the time of the next election" - lol. Why don't you give me a grand now and I'll give you a billion back*

No wonder the electorate was so easily duped.

*(at such time as inflation has rendered a billion worth £500 at today's rates)

 

[Silly Goose On The Loose]

not wanting to discuss Brexit itself in here but re: 350 million a week to the NHS, it isn't really all that bonkers and can happen irrespective of Brexit:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/05...nhs-how-the-brexit-bus-pledge-is-coming-true/

Do you believe the Tories?