Enzokk wrote: » What you are referring to I think is constructive ambiguity, the use of ambiguous language to advance a political position. A current example would be the 20 000 new police officers that will be hired.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/eoghan-harris-unionism-must-now-break-its-dependence-on-the-tories-look-less-to-london-and-more-to-lisburn-and-warm-up-the-house-for-moderate-nationalists-38661120.html Eoghan Harris trying to argue that unionists should merge in the north. Equally that spanned and SF should sort of do the same. But he makes some ridiculous arguments about Northern protestants diminishing in a UI like they did in the South in the 20's. For someone living in Dublin, it's astonishing he didn't recognise the country he lives in.
Joe_ Public wrote: » While not questioning Jo Swinsons remainer credentials, i still find it curious why she - along with her other lib dem colleagues - seemed so insistent on having a EU referendum all those years ago. Not suggesting it's a stick to beat them with or anything, just not sure i understand their reasoning for it at the time.
prawnsambo wrote: » Was that not part of the Tory election manifesto? In that case it would have been part of their programme for government and agreed on before coalition.
[Deleted User] wrote: » You have to ask the question - are there circumstances in which it's justified for Government to harness an untruth to further their long-term national goals?
quokula wrote: » No this something she stated before entering the coalition.https://twitter.com/james7holland/status/1173545015370506246
Deleted User wrote: » So, she was in favour of a referendum on European membership, yet now wishes to annul the result. If it were that dangerous to leave, she wouldn't even support holding the referendum in the first place. I cannot think of anything more deranged than that, and it's a glimpse into how her mind really works. She has nothing but contempt for the ordinary British voter.
Gintonious wrote: » https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1191687795343052802 Will this help Corbyn at all?
ballsymchugh wrote: » given that Theresa May spent long enough banging on that 80% of the voters had voted for pro brexit parties in 2017, the voters will know exactly what they are going to get if they vote for the lib dems. it's not very hard to understand.
prawnsambo wrote: » My mind just boggled there. Uncomfortable feeling. How many Tories have changed their minds on the subject in the last three years, let alone the last ten? And I mean in either direction.
[Deleted User] wrote: » By all means change your mind, but don't then seek to eliminate the democratic result because it didn't go your way.
GM228 wrote: » It's not about a case of not going any particular way, probably the single biggest reason for another referendum now is because people are more informed now than they were in 2016, the leave side fed many a pack of lies (and also led a potentially unlawful campaign).
With Boris Johnson set to launch his party’s campaign on Wednesday, the Tories are up 2pts on 42% compared with a week ago, with Labour, also up 2pts, on 26%. If the lead endured until polling day, it would be enough to give the Tories a comfortable overall majority and allow the prime minister to push his Brexit deal through parliament and take the UK out of the EU. The Liberal Democrats are up one point on 16%, while the Brexit party, which said on Friday that it would run candidates in all seats unless Johnson pulled his Brexit deal, is down one on 9%.
[Deleted User] wrote: » If we're going to be objective, we should admit and agree that both sides committed offences against the truth.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » One (now ex-candidate) thinks she is from the star Sirius.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-party-candidate-who-believes-20811588 Tip of the iceberg I'd say, doubt there's been much vetting.
Shelga wrote: » Andrew Bridgen making everything so much worse for Jacob Rees-Mogg just now on PM on Radio 4. I laughed out loud at how much of a hole he was digging, in his hamfisted attempts to make JRM sound great :pac:
Shelga wrote: » Here's a link to the worst part of the Bridgen interview:https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1191784118633275392?s=20
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/eoghan-harris-unionism-must-now-break-its-dependence-on-the-tories-look-less-to-london-and-more-to-lisburn-and-warm-up-the-house-for-moderate-nationalists-38661120.html Eoghan Harris trying to argue that unionists should merge in the north. Equally that spanned and SF should sort of do the same. But he makes some ridiculous arguments about Northern protestants diminishing in a UI like they did in the South in the 20's. For someone living in Dublin, it's astonishing he didn't recognise the country he lives in. What I cannot fathom is how he can't see that it was the DUPs support for Brexit instead of a remain position that has led them into the position they are in.. The DUP took a gamble. But the odds were stacked against them and in their bitterness they were blind to that.
VinLieger wrote: » Oooh look someone who doesn't understand how international trade deals work, i get to post my favorite youtube vid again The UK isn't going to get preferential trade deals with anyone. China, America, India, Mercosur et al are going to tear them apart. To tide them over at the beginning the UK will need to beg "lesser nations" for deals that are far more weighted in favour of the smaller country they are negotiating with simply so the UK can begin getting some deals done.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » So far, the UK has signed 18 "continuity" deals covering 48 countries or territories. All together, these deals represent about 8% of total UK trade. AFAIK none are better than what the UK gets by being in the EU. Several will be worse because the EU is negotiating better deals with the likes of Switzerland. Others like Canada have got most of what they wanted handed on a plate by the UK announcing they will abolish so may tariffs.
theological wrote: » This post is bemusing for two reasons. You tell me that I misunderstand the nature of free trade agreements without telling me how. You have the strange belief that somehow the UK won't be able to negotiate free trade agreements even when much smaller countries have managed to. The idea that countries wouldn't want enhanced access to the UK market (the world's 5th largest) post-Brexit is bizarre.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Another example of the lying Torieshttps://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1191732381306277890
theological wrote: » This post is bemusing for two reasons. You tell me that I misunderstand the nature of free trade agreements without telling me how. You have the strange belief that somehow the UK won't be able to negotiate free trade agreements even when much smaller countries have managed to. The idea that countries wouldn't want enhanced access to the UK market (the world's 5th largest) post-Brexit is bizarre. I fully respect your right to disagree with me, and I welcome the opportunity to be challenged but please provide something to back up your arguments. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the UK is not legally entitled to sign any free trade agreement until it has left the EU. At present it can only negotiate with countries that already have a free trade agreement with the EU to ensure that arrangements carry over. I'm fully aware that a lot of the conversations about immigration and future free trade agreements will be matters for the next parliament and for subsequent governments. The withdrawal bill simply allows the UK to pursue new policies in these areas.
lawred2 wrote: » Is there no election standards office in the UK?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
