Don't you know?
For one so passionately loyal to Hillary Clinton you don't appear to be keeping up to date with anything she says or does.
She said it in 2008 and also in 2015.
http://time.com/4337518/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch-civil-lawsuit/
So Geoff you don't have the time to respond as fully as you would like. You do have the time to imply that David's cousin might just be a professional propagandist for remaining in Europe. Like most Brexiters you have little to say that is based on fact but rather point to the sunlit ,chemtrail free, uplands of a revived Albion (for it will just be Albion. The Scots, the N Irish and perhaps even the Welsh will have bid England a less than fond adieu)
If ordinary working people think the UK is bad under the current shower of a government, then they should just consider how much worse it would get with the Tories let totally off the leash of European legistlation which is rightly in place to protect the environment, workers rights, and a host of other everyday matters. Personally I don't think it will happen, unless the remain vote don't turn out to vote!
Vote leave and the expats will get consequences... I suppose this is a secondary thought.
French nationality applications will soar or british repatriations?
Anyway the influx started in the 80's. Forty years to enjoy folks
I do think that the recent referenda - Scotland, the voting system and now the EU are showing that a referendum result of 50% + 1 is perhaps not the best way of deciding fundamental constitutional issues and issues of sovereignty.
What would be a permanent decision could be swayed one way or another by events leading to a temporary change in opinion at the time of the vote. The vote is rarely accepted as final because things always change with time. Hence in Scotland we see the rumblings of a new referendum on the basis of a Brexit leading to a changed situation. Well yes it is a changed situation, but it was always known that a majority conservative government could lead to an EU in-out referendum. The price of oil has collpsed so if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, would the SNP now be saying that circumstances have changed requiring a new referendum to rejoin the UK ? Somehow I doubt it. So that means voting for the status quo has a lesser value than voting for change because the proponents of change tend to see a vote against them as a deferred vote in their favour.
I'm sure it will be the same as the vote on the EU. If Brexit loses I doubt the Brexiteers will go away quietly and accept that they've lost. There will be numerous excuses as to why the electorate were "fooled" into voting to stay and so the whole sorry argument will carry on.
I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that simple majority referenda aren't a great way of settling issues such as this. Perhaps they should require a larger majority to enable the change to occur or have other criteria - a majority in all regions for example or minimum voter turnout. Countries with written constitutions rarely permit changes to the constitution to happen by a simple majority - it will often require a 60% or 2/3rds majority for change to happen. In the US constitutional change needs the agreement of 2/3rds of the Senate and House of Representatives and 3/4 of the state legislatures as well. I think it would make sense for a exit to require all countries of the UK to vote in favour. If that doesn't pass then a decision would have to be made as to whether to remain together as the United Kingdom, but it does seem that currently we could vote for Brexit with a possible break-up of the UK as a consequence, based on a small majority of those actually voting voting to leave the EU, but with that majority representing a minority of the overall British electorate. It does seem like madness really.
I hear that Boris Johnson is promising to build a wall across the south coast to keep the immigrants out, and to get the EU to pay for it. Any truth in this?
Yes, and he wants another at the Watford gap. He wants to keep the Home Counties British.
Yes, what a shocker. Still at least Santa Claus is alive and well.
And facts can be cherry picked. I read the same text as you and i see the all important rider of" if iran attacks israel" a bit different from the implied first strike others have "read"
Yes i take your point.
i agree Trump may be as bad. But he has the common touch and this is a rare asset. I do not think bombing nations is the solution even if you have the capacity.It builds resentment. Daesh/Isis is the result of American errors and british ones
Chirac said so at the time and he was branded a surrendering monkey.Better be a monkey than a war criminal like Bush and Blair!
Common touch? Trump? You mean a racist misogynist - and thats just what he's said in unguarded moments. No, he frightens me. Clinton has been saying gung ho stuff to appeal to the gung ho right wingers whose support she'll have to have to win. No politician is truthful but at least Clinton has foreign policy experience. Not sure about her teflon coated (just teflon I hope) husband - though having seen him speak at, of all places, the Hay Book Festival (saw Eddie Izzard at another year but thats another story) , back to Mr Clinton, he's a damn good speaker. Perhaps he writes for Hilary. :-)
Trump certainly does not have the common touch. He's a highly privileged rich kid who was a provocateur and bully in school . His one skill is that he is highly manipulative and knows which blue collar underclass buttons to press. Unfortunately he may have his finger on the wrong button should he win the Presidency.
W
we all know that presidents of the US have to contend with Congress....so the fellows are not electing a dictator but a mast tied to the ship.
i dont know why everybody ridiculises him.
W
we all know that presidents of the US have to contend with Congress....so the fellows are not electing a dictator but a mast tied to the ship.
i dont know why everybody ridiculises him.
I like the cut of your jib sir .We should meet some time over a pint (of Merlot perhaps). But if this thread shows anything it how the same facts can produce totally viewpoints - politics and religion (heaven save us from climate change)
I don't think any one here is ridiculing Trump. Rather being incredulous at the naivety of the American electorate. Trump is universally loathed by the Republican party but they fail to recognise that Trump was born of their own neocon "philosophy". By becoming more and more extreme,more illiberal and more belligerent over the years they have painted themselves into a corner only to be trumped by Trump. One can only fear for the US and the rest of the world.
I don't think any one here is ridiculing Trump.
I will. The guy is a tit.
Go and tell him to his face.
But a very popular tit!
I like
political incorrectness. Thats his main appeal. It does not go very deep but its refreshing. All these seraglio politicians have no zest at all.Plus he sees through events. Paris is unsafe he said. We ve got to tackle these radical muslims in a big way....i forgive his jibes on women ,mexicans etc