Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 29th May 2019, 8:35 PMSo does that mean when Parliament is dissolved we don't have a Prime Minister?
I'm quite happy to go along with Master Bunter on this one.
When it comes to being a government minister, there's the theory and there's the practice and neither is particularly easy to understand - never mind explain. 
A remainer called me a peado enabler the other day.???
He's going right to the old Bailey.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 29th May 2019, 9:51 PMA remainer called me a peado enabler the other day.???
He's going right to the old Bailey.
He's obviously a thicko, as are so many on both sides.
Quote: Briosaid @ 29th May 2019, 6:10 PMHe should be given life imprisonment for his hairdo, if you ask me.
Well at least he doesn't dye it.
Quote: Briosaid @ 29th May 2019, 9:06 PMYES! HE'S A LYING TURD.
You mean like that Salmon bloke?
Quote: Chappers @ 29th May 2019, 11:51 PMWell at least he doesn't dye it.
?
Are you sure?
Damn.
For a wonderful moment, I thought it said "Bercow in the dock - facing life imprisonment".
Quote: A Horseradish @ 30th May 2019, 5:14 AMDamn.
For a wonderful moment, I thought it said "Bercow in the dock - facing life imprisonment".
I have a spare keyboard if yours just broke mid flow horse.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 30th May 2019, 7:08 AMI have a spare keyboard if yours just broke mid flow horse.
That's very kind of you Mr Goodlad but it is working perfectly well presently.
It's important, isn't it, to do as much as we can now so that people in a hundred years time will be able to know what ordinary people were like.
You fling shit - we fling shit... some will stick.
I think Alyn Smith's allegations are based upon the activities of a chap called George Cottrell, a 25-year-old aristocrat known as "Posh George", who was UKIP's head of fundraising until his arrest by the FBI on charges of extortion, money laundering and fraud in 2016.
Apparently, having been released from jail following a plea deal, he is again acting as a fundraiser for Nigel Farage - this time in connection with the Brexit party.
Needless to say, in posting this message I neither make nor support any suggestion of impropriety on the part of any person or organisation mentioned herein. 
Yes.
I'm guessing that whatever happens in the various court cases, the lies told in the 1975 referendum will not be taken into account. Heath and probably Wilson knew from 1970 that it would lead to greater political and monetary union but we didn't know it then. They didn't let the information get out and Heath especially was full of denials.
There may also be denials from that time floating around in the media sphere of some who are still alive and at, say, 86 very vocal. No names. No pack drill. Anyhow, because we weren't told the truth,, most people like me were in favour of Remain. Well, not quite like me. I was 12 and not typical for being political but it was all very quiet. I wasn't a Thunberg.
Labour's Peter Shore was a highly individual figure, not on the far left of his party but slightly to the left of its centre. While respected, he was largely on his own in what he was saying from that part of the spectrum. The media sidelined him by emphasising that Benn who was moving to the hard left and the ultra conservative Enoch Powell were the main voices against our membership.
They rather easily conveyed both of them as mad -, (Benn with wild staring eyes and Enoch as fascist : he was much more complex than that : in fact one of the most intellectually substantial people ever to have been in Parliament although he is famous mostly for moments of awful racist ill-judgement), - not least because it was such a weird alliance. Arguably it was only that which meant that a majority voted to stay in. It was no stranger than Nigel Farage and George Galloway being in agreement now.
Incidentally, this clip does sort of give me goosebumps because it reminds me how so many figures in politics at that time with any sort of view seemed so - I am not sure what word to use - mature in comparison with the adolescent behaviour of today's MPs. The shock that came with the result - I remember it so well - people thought that the vote had been fixed, It didn't bother me at the time but, given what we have encountered since, I am prepared to think perhaps it was.
People forget so easily how difficult it was to get sensible figures from the government in early 2016, but it's hard to see why any person voting LEAVE was seriously influenced by the £350 million figure, when the truish figures were published in a shower of "Yah boo you got it wrong" comments a good two months before the referendum.
Did YOU know anything about the Thatcher refund before the £350 million figure was publicized??
As for the bus, it doesn't actually say ALL the £350 million should go to the NHS, (that I believe was a media exaggeration) what it actually said was:
"We send the EU £350 million a week
Lets fund our NHS instead, Vote Leave"
In the speeches with the bus in the early parts of the campaign, both Boris & Gove clearly said. Let's spend the money ON OUR OWN PRIORITIES SUCH AS THE NHS. but in later speeches I guess they succumbed to what the media were saying and said something like: Lets spend the money on the NHS.
You can check all this should you accept this mission, by looking up the videos of their speeches which are still on-line.
Well, yes, I agree.
I had to read that phrase "Thatcher refund" several times before I got the gist of that part of what you were saying so as you imply Joe/Jo Public would not have dwelt on the ins and outs of it. I looked at the bus again too. I am hearing arguments that it should be about £185m when umpteen rebates and calculations have been taken into account but that is still a lot of money. Furthermore, the voting was taking place in a spirit of whether or not people wanted massive sums paid. Nothing else economically in many cases but much else often as stated in terms of other matters. .
A fairly key word is "send".
Is it not sent first and then any deductions, if indeed there are any, are sorted out later or in parallel? But I'm reluctant frankly to get into the debate because I think of Montequieu who believed the judiciary should be separate from the executive and the legislature. The courts are getting so involved in every aspect of politics now that it's they who have seemingly taken over governance and scrutiny of governments as in the EU and US. It is not very British.
I didn't want to vote at all. I couldn't make up my mind. On the day, I voted Remain without any sort of belief in it. As soon as the results were announced, I switched firmly to Leave behind the majority vote. I couldn't even start to take on board that other people were not doing that and the longer this has gone on I've ended up not just Leave but staunch Leave. In three years, I've developed an actual hatred of the EU for how it has behaved and all politicians who have not shifted as I have done. Many will feel that they have no authority to do anything until they deliver.
But irrespective of their wholly negative impacts on me, I am a democrat who places democracy over any economic outcome, any environmental outcome, and any other outcome. I am wholly guided by this principle over all else. I define it here - others don't and they are wrong - as honouring the result of that referendum first and anything else they want to do including reversing it would have to come afterwards. I don't actually believe the economy would go down the drain. And I know that much climate change work is done at UN so the green EU angle is bogus.
I had forgotten another Labour figure who got it right in 1975.
Barbara Castle...... (so charismatic here):
I believe that, upon any impartial interpretation, the message on the bus was intended to convey the message that membership of the EU costs us £350 million a week and that, if we were not in the EU, that money could go to the NHS.
I know that's not what the words on the bus actually say but I nevertheless believe that's the message those words were intended to convey.
However, in deciding Boris's guilt or innocence with regard to the misconduct charge, it doesn't matter how true or otherwise the message on the bus might have been: the only question is whether or not his duty in public office required him, at the time he published the allegedly misleading statements, NOT to mislead the public with regard to Britain's contribution to the EU.
Accepted and now that is for others to decide and not us.
But on the separate point, it is of course the case that any campaign is not responsible for deciding what should be spent on what and that is purely down to governments.