Surely DD knew enough to have made his decision at the meeting! I'm thinking on how much of his action is out of tory anti-May politicking mischief making rather than principle.
Will we hear from Boris, who to me seems entirely Boriscentric? His reason for existence seems a tad or so Vicar-of-Bray.
Now who TN will choose to succeed DD and this acolytes will be interesting.!
I was against the original decision to join the then EEC, and I have never changed my mind, because I could see the intended outcome - a 'United States of Europe' ruled by a Franco-German alliance.
Ah yes, the bit that Ted Heath didn't tell us about in '73 when we joined, and Harold Wilson neglected to mention when we voted to remain in '75. Between then and 2016, as the EEC evolved into the EU, we were given no chance to say no to further integration, so it was little surprise that 'Leave' won two years ago.
Since then it's become apparent that it's extremely difficult to disentangle ourselves from the EU, which would suggest that if we don't leave now, it will be impossible in years to come.
@198kHz Exactly. Both those gentlemen were thinking of themselves - and not the country - when they 'gave us the options to decide'
We will leave, and despite the wailing from the remainers, I believe things will not be as catastrophic as they claim.
We traded with countries outside the EU before, do now, and will do so after. Yes, there will be changes, but they go on all the time - USA and the Trump-inspired actions of current times being just one example.
Yes, I had to look him up, too. I remember seeing him on TV a few times, so not a total unknown. His wife is Brazilian so our coffee imports should be secure.
Do we know whether he was/is a remainer or a leaver?
Apparently he campaigned to leave; whether he also wanted to stay in the CU and SM, (along with many of his Leave colleagues) I have no idea.
By the way, I'm still waiting for an example of a "silly rule" that we can get rid of, once we leave.
09-07-2018 1:59 PM - edited 09-07-2018 2:01 PM
How about the one which allows failed asylum seekers with a string of criminal convictions, who also run over young girls and kill them whilst driving without a licence etc. to be allowed to remain in the UK?
I think it's important to understand fully exactly what happened in this case. I am in no way defending the individual concerned, but he was not allowed to stay in this country just because the ECHR says he must be allowed to do so. That was an invention by the bile-ridden Daily Mail.
Article 8 of the ECHR actually does grant permission for judiciary of the country who is holding the asylum-seeker to expel anyone they wish, but before doing so they should (not compulsory note!) take into account the effect of doing so on the family of the person concerned. The decision is entirely that of the judiciary of the country concerned. In this case, the UK rejected the appeal of the UK Border Agency that he should be expelled, because he has children, who were considered innocent of the father's crime, and taking away their father would have further compounded the problem. It was the UK judiciary who made this decision, not based on some compulsory rule contained within the ECHR. Since then, the UK has tightened up the guidelines to UK judiciary to avoid this happening again. Apparently nobody considered why the whole family could not be expelled.
Paul Dacre Esq., Daily mail editor at the time, used the event to stir things up a bit, but in doing so exposed some deficiencies in the UKs procedures.
The more a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it -- George Orwell.
Beware "alternative facts".
"Nineteen Eighty-Four" is set in Landing Strip, which is understood to be Great Britain in the future, a division of Oceania, a superstate that is continually at war with other superstates. Currently being organised by an American administration near you.
As well as the previous answer, it's worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights predates the EU, and that the UK was one of its originators. Also it is not not part of the EU.
So to use a baseball metaphor - strike one. Did you want another go? "Silly rules"? anyone?
10-07-2018 12:57 PM - edited 10-07-2018 12:58 PM
@artmo wrote: She is meeting Conservative MPs tonight.
Last supper, or one of the last? Look out for the one kissing her on the cheek.
The European Convention on Human Rights was introduced in order to prevent a repeat of the atrocities carried out by the German Nazi regime. For example the right to a family life to stop the forced sterilisation of people a government just doesn't like. The convention has since been interpreted in ways that give anyone, however harmful to our society, the right to live here on some pretext or other.