Do I Use Shampoo Or Conditioner First?
Shopping & Style1 min ago
May & Her Brexit
It is alleged that she not only doesn't want it, she is and has been actively working to prevent it. Would you not agree?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
Of course Leavers would have fought on, but not by demanding a recount, or denying the legitimacy of the result, even though the dice were loaded in favour of Remain from day one (and further prejudiced - the point when my speculative optimism as in "we may just do this" turned to despair with the murder of Jo Cox).
Leavers (unlike Remainers) knew that voting to remain was not a vote for the status quo and stability because the federal project would proceed apace pushed by the Commission in its clandestine without ever wider jurisdiction over the policies of the mmber states. Further, that the inherent instability of the Eurozone might create a new economic crisis, e.g. a collapse of the Spanish banking system, or the need for an Italian bail-out.
The UKIP vote would not have dissipated, and any future EU power grabs or economic catastrophes would strengthen in it in the Keynsian spirit of "when the facts change...". Not in the deceitful way the quote is used by Remainers ("Brexit lies exposed!), but in the sense that real[i facts have exposed the fragility of the Eurozone, or have revealed more clearly the political aspirations of the EU oligarchy. These aspirations, by the way, are not necessarily base, and in some ways noble. But they are [i]irreconcilably] inimical to the sense of national identity and pride which many of us feel. I would have thought the Scots especially would understand that.
Leavers (unlike Remainers) knew that voting to remain was not a vote for the status quo and stability because the federal project would proceed apace pushed by the Commission in its clandestine without ever wider jurisdiction over the policies of the mmber states. Further, that the inherent instability of the Eurozone might create a new economic crisis, e.g. a collapse of the Spanish banking system, or the need for an Italian bail-out.
The UKIP vote would not have dissipated, and any future EU power grabs or economic catastrophes would strengthen in it in the Keynsian spirit of "when the facts change...". Not in the deceitful way the quote is used by Remainers ("Brexit lies exposed!), but in the sense that real[i facts have exposed the fragility of the Eurozone, or have revealed more clearly the political aspirations of the EU oligarchy. These aspirations, by the way, are not necessarily base, and in some ways noble. But they are [i]irreconcilably] inimical to the sense of national identity and pride which many of us feel. I would have thought the Scots especially would understand that.
Nice summing up on the current state of play here Khandro. Hard to disagree with any of the salient points made. Particularly the one suggesting that May only called the last GE to ensure that she got the extra time to ruin the Brexit that was voted for and the likelihood of Farage being a wrecking ball that the EUSSR will not relish.
Be careful what you wish for EUSSR, indeed.
https:/
Be careful what you wish for EUSSR, indeed.
https:/
Yes, she (Shriver) is very good and there's a part 2 to that interview as well which is worth looking at.
Also re. Theresa May: there's an interesting letter in the London Review of Books (07/03/2019) which I'll paraphrase as;
No one will be quoting from her best Brexit speeches 50 years from now, but she has made one compelling speech about Brexit, published on 25th April 2016 which concludes with;
".... so this is my analysis of the rights and wrongs, the opportunities and the risks of out membership of the EU - and the reasons I believe it is clearly in our national interest to remain a member of the EU."
Which just about sums up why we are where we are.
Also re. Theresa May: there's an interesting letter in the London Review of Books (07/03/2019) which I'll paraphrase as;
No one will be quoting from her best Brexit speeches 50 years from now, but she has made one compelling speech about Brexit, published on 25th April 2016 which concludes with;
".... so this is my analysis of the rights and wrongs, the opportunities and the risks of out membership of the EU - and the reasons I believe it is clearly in our national interest to remain a member of the EU."
Which just about sums up why we are where we are.
Why do you think the EU wants Britain to take part in European elections? Plainly they don’t, unsurprisingly. But if we stay it’s the only option apparently. I wouldn’t be too gung ho about Nigel Farage either. Remain supported are if a yougov poll is to be believed more likely to vote that Lrave supporters. 30 councillors have quit the Tories to join the TIG and there is a healthy stream of able candidates applying to stand in full rosters in all seats.
If these elections go ahead they could well be the referendum in all but name
If these elections go ahead they could well be the referendum in all but name
"If these elections go ahead they could well be the referendum in all but name"
I don't think they will. EU elections have always struggled to lure people away from Eastenders and at the last two times of asking less than half the numbers that voted in the referendum turned out. If asked to do so next month it is fairly certain that most of the half the electorate that voted to leave will not be so tempted. That will probably bring the turnout down to less than 20%.
I don't think they will. EU elections have always struggled to lure people away from Eastenders and at the last two times of asking less than half the numbers that voted in the referendum turned out. If asked to do so next month it is fairly certain that most of the half the electorate that voted to leave will not be so tempted. That will probably bring the turnout down to less than 20%.
I received an email this afternoon asking me to confirm my availability to help officiate at the EU election, should it take place, by the local Electoral Management Team. In fairness the email does point out that nothing is officially known other than what is being reported in the media, but that they feel getting the ducks in a row may be the sensible thing to do.
"As a referendum result achieved by illegal means is not democratic, then she's on the right track."
The problem with your hypothesis is that you need to establish the influence the alleged illegal acts had on the result. It is not sufficient to simply say that illegal action occurred so the result must be void. To understand this it might be useful to examine the offence of perjury. That offence (usually lying under oath in court) can only be successfully prosecuted if it can be shown that the perjured evidence had a material influence on the result of the proceedings. Simply telling lies in court does not complete the offence.
Turning to elections, unfortunately election law does not deal in any specific detail with referendums instead tending to concentrate on actions by candidates and their agents, But that which deals with Parliamentary and local elections clearly sets out the principle that not only must illegal or corrupt practices be proved but also the court must consider the effect those practices had on the result. As with perjury it is not sufficient to void an election simply because corrupt practices had occurred.
Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey sat as a judge when four local constituents petitioned against the election of Lutfur Rahman as mayor of Tower Hamlets on the basis that he and his agents had indulged in corrupt practices. Mr Mawrey went to great lengths to explain the law at the beginning of his judgement and he made the principles I have outlined quite clear. His findings were that Mr Rahman and his agents had indulged in a number of corrupt practices and that the corruption was so serious and widespread that it had a material influence on the result of the election. As a result the election was declared void, Mr Rahman barred from standing in the re-run and he was fined £250k.
There are a number of people actively seeking to reverse the result of the referendum. I’m quite sure that by now, were there a chance of success, one of them would have launched action to have the result declared void for the reason you cite. But they haven’t. They would have to prove that the illegal acts materially influenced the result. That may be a bit difficult, for example, when considering excessive spend on advertising as it would have to be shown to what degree the propaganda influenced voters. If it’s any help I can say that no propaganda from either side influenced me and I don’t suppose I am alone. I made up my mind which way I would vote if ever given the chance in 1992 and nothing would have changed that. So unfortunately you assertion that “LEAVE (achieved by illegal means) means REMAIN” does not hold much water.
The problem with your hypothesis is that you need to establish the influence the alleged illegal acts had on the result. It is not sufficient to simply say that illegal action occurred so the result must be void. To understand this it might be useful to examine the offence of perjury. That offence (usually lying under oath in court) can only be successfully prosecuted if it can be shown that the perjured evidence had a material influence on the result of the proceedings. Simply telling lies in court does not complete the offence.
Turning to elections, unfortunately election law does not deal in any specific detail with referendums instead tending to concentrate on actions by candidates and their agents, But that which deals with Parliamentary and local elections clearly sets out the principle that not only must illegal or corrupt practices be proved but also the court must consider the effect those practices had on the result. As with perjury it is not sufficient to void an election simply because corrupt practices had occurred.
Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey sat as a judge when four local constituents petitioned against the election of Lutfur Rahman as mayor of Tower Hamlets on the basis that he and his agents had indulged in corrupt practices. Mr Mawrey went to great lengths to explain the law at the beginning of his judgement and he made the principles I have outlined quite clear. His findings were that Mr Rahman and his agents had indulged in a number of corrupt practices and that the corruption was so serious and widespread that it had a material influence on the result of the election. As a result the election was declared void, Mr Rahman barred from standing in the re-run and he was fined £250k.
There are a number of people actively seeking to reverse the result of the referendum. I’m quite sure that by now, were there a chance of success, one of them would have launched action to have the result declared void for the reason you cite. But they haven’t. They would have to prove that the illegal acts materially influenced the result. That may be a bit difficult, for example, when considering excessive spend on advertising as it would have to be shown to what degree the propaganda influenced voters. If it’s any help I can say that no propaganda from either side influenced me and I don’t suppose I am alone. I made up my mind which way I would vote if ever given the chance in 1992 and nothing would have changed that. So unfortunately you assertion that “LEAVE (achieved by illegal means) means REMAIN” does not hold much water.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Mps Have Voted In Favour Of Assisted...
News12 mins ago
Body & Soul13 mins ago
