Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Tory Leadership
40 Answers
Struck by how amateur were the pitches from Gove, Hancock and Gyi.
No access to speechwriters? Gove, I think fatally wounded. As Justice Secretary he agreed with people being sent to prison for using Grade A drugs - though he used them himself. Thought Hunt did well, but Raab better.
No access to speechwriters? Gove, I think fatally wounded. As Justice Secretary he agreed with people being sent to prison for using Grade A drugs - though he used them himself. Thought Hunt did well, but Raab better.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Paigntonian. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"A no deal Brexit is not what was promised prior to the referendum, not what the country voted for and is not what is wanted by the majority of the country at present. So to say it would be "democratic" is disingenuous."
And yet again with this nonsense. As explained a number of times, the vote was about whether we left, not how we left. The obvious being that if we voted leave then we would leave by the most advantageous agreement we could get before the deadline. Due to EU taking the Mickey during "negotiations" this turned out to be no-deal; so in effect it was exactly what was voted for. The majority of the country would obviously prefer sonething more but it is obvious that isn't on the table. (I would prefer to win the lottery every week but I'm mature enough to know what isn't likely and not complain about it.) The only disingenuous thing is claiming that the democratically arrived at decision wasn't democratic. And perhaps delaying delivering the result by arranging extensions claiming there's still an opportunity for a decent deal from the EU elite, yet knowing that if they haven't acted reasonably before now, when they had the chance there is next to no chance they'll suddenly do so now.
And yet again with this nonsense. As explained a number of times, the vote was about whether we left, not how we left. The obvious being that if we voted leave then we would leave by the most advantageous agreement we could get before the deadline. Due to EU taking the Mickey during "negotiations" this turned out to be no-deal; so in effect it was exactly what was voted for. The majority of the country would obviously prefer sonething more but it is obvious that isn't on the table. (I would prefer to win the lottery every week but I'm mature enough to know what isn't likely and not complain about it.) The only disingenuous thing is claiming that the democratically arrived at decision wasn't democratic. And perhaps delaying delivering the result by arranging extensions claiming there's still an opportunity for a decent deal from the EU elite, yet knowing that if they haven't acted reasonably before now, when they had the chance there is next to no chance they'll suddenly do so now.
-- answer removed --
> As explained a number of times, the vote was about whether we left, not how we left.
You conveniently miss out the bit before the vote, i.e. the campaigning, which was all about how we'd leave. Kind of like ignoring the manifesto or election promise. I seem to recall phrases like "the easiest deal in history", not "we will not be able to agree among ourselves on the best deal, let alone with Europe, so we will leave with the worst 'deal' that is logically possible which is no deal".
The point is now moot though. We are where we are. The winning Tory candidate, whoever it is, could try to leave with no deal. Whether they'd succeed is another matter - I doubt it. Yet, if they did succeed, the outcome could well destroy the Tory party - a wrecked economy and civil unrest would not go down well with Tory voters (i.e. the masses beyond party members and MPs) who tend to value the economy and and law and order highly.
You conveniently miss out the bit before the vote, i.e. the campaigning, which was all about how we'd leave. Kind of like ignoring the manifesto or election promise. I seem to recall phrases like "the easiest deal in history", not "we will not be able to agree among ourselves on the best deal, let alone with Europe, so we will leave with the worst 'deal' that is logically possible which is no deal".
The point is now moot though. We are where we are. The winning Tory candidate, whoever it is, could try to leave with no deal. Whether they'd succeed is another matter - I doubt it. Yet, if they did succeed, the outcome could well destroy the Tory party - a wrecked economy and civil unrest would not go down well with Tory voters (i.e. the masses beyond party members and MPs) who tend to value the economy and and law and order highly.
Ellipsis - The possibility of 'no deal' was explicitly put to the electorate, voted on and sanctioned.
May clearly stated that 'No deal is better than a bad deal' as part of her election campaign following on from the referendum. Over and over again she gave that formula and took enough votes to win a General Election, albeit with a reduced majority (no deal isn't ideal, after all). She reneged on her promise and has cheated the electorate.
You have an apt avatar - you keep leaving out the facts.
May clearly stated that 'No deal is better than a bad deal' as part of her election campaign following on from the referendum. Over and over again she gave that formula and took enough votes to win a General Election, albeit with a reduced majority (no deal isn't ideal, after all). She reneged on her promise and has cheated the electorate.
You have an apt avatar - you keep leaving out the facts.
