Blah Blah

It is very clear from interviews with her that she is not the brightest of young people. Naivety is no defense granted, but we are not talking about some Jihadi mastermind here. We are talking about a teenage girl who was seduced by something she had little understanding of. It is exactly the same psychology that drives teenagers to join any gang. What strikes me most about her, is her lack of emotion. She seems disconnected and this is not a normal cognitive response. We have had over 300 Jihadi fighters return. Others HAVE been stripped of UK nationality where a clear case of dual nationality exists. So why all this focus all off a sudden on one young woman who never pointed any gun at anyone. I think a case can be made for the old adage that what men do might be shocking, but women only have to stand by to be more vilified. Women are are demonised for less, history is full of examples of that. And I can't help but think there is a bit of that going on here. She will end up coming back here after a long legal process because she does not have dual nationality. Javid has engaged in dog whistle politics yet again, to forward his real aim of replacing May when the time comes. Yes she will need monitoring, deradicalising and her child may be taken into care, but that is nothing new for he UK. We already have over a hundred returnees undergoing deradicalisation programmes. It can be done. And we also have a legal process for prosecuting anyone guilty of a crime under UK law, of which joining IS is.

Javid has been engaging in dog whistle politics for a while now and it is clear who his target market is. How far to the right he would actually take the Tory Party if he were to become its leader is another question, but for now, he is speaking to an increasingly right wing and increasingly diminishing party membership.

I think the new store is a great improvement and means no longer having to go to the Old Kent Road one for their bigger range. Hopefully all the existing staff have moved to the new store too.

This for me is the last straw. Hatton back in the party (bear in mind he is now a property tycoon and lives in a luxury penthouse in Liverpool) meams I too am leaving the Labour Party.

But I have not tried to presume how those people would have voted have I Angelina. I simply made the point that as a percentage of the electorate things are a lot more even that leave voters seem to want to accept. \in other words, the debate was never really won and that is why it is ongoing in the way it is. I also wonder Joeleg, who those leave voters will blame when they see how those global markets do us over in trade deal negotiations too. Has anyone even read the terms of CETA for example? Do they know that Canada, in return for that trade deal, had to agree to open up her internal services for tender from EU countries? Because that is the issue when a small market tries to get a trade deal with a massive one. We are going to be a small player. There is no getting away from that.

Tommy Robinson said the same thing from a stage outside the Old Bailey last year. It is a standard line for the political extremes and populists. As the old adage goes, get everyone to hate someone, as long as it is not you.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure what you are trying to say JoeLeg or what > YMMV means? > > Leave voters voted to leave the EU by over one > point two million voters in 2016 so that is not a > 'skin of their teeth vote'. 4% IS by the skin of the teeth. If you factor in (as tiddles points out) the electorate that didn't vote at all (almost a third) then that drops even lower. Your offense at use of that term demonstrates my point perfectly in fact. The reason why there is such a bitter and entrenched ongoing battle over this is precisely because of that very narrow margin of difference. And also as tiddles writes, Quorums are par for the course (no pun intended) in all kinds of democratic processes. A more honest campaign might have led to a different result. Ever thought about that?

People have a democratic right to march, just as people have a democratic right to lobby parliament. That did not stop with the referendum. The truth is that leave voters know they won by the skin of their teeth and are terrified of losing it in a 2nd ref. So who can blame remainers for smelling that fear and fighting for what they believe in. No true democrat would. The last People's Vote march got 500-700k out (depending on who you believe). By any measure, that is a huge demonstration for London.

Yeah, Uncleglen does it again. Manages to insult the vast majority of settled EU migrants whilst hitting his usual sweet spot of racist bigotry.

The EU and the EBU are two different things so no, we are stuck with the misery of Eurovision humiliation for a good while yet.

I agree. Given that most people here have been paying taxes for years and decades in some cases (my wife included)and are already well known on existing bureacratic databases, their rights should have been ring fenced. It is the notion of 'application' that irks me most. If it were simply a case of giving an automatic right to remain status, that would be fine. But the language of application suggests some people will be turned down and mistakes will be made.

No surprise regarding Farage, and also note that he is not returning to UKIP, unable to implant himself as party leader there. It was thus always about Farage of course. My view is that whatever happens, a genie is out of the bottle that can not be put back. There is no winnable position as far as the electorate are concerned (although I would love to see how a battle between Farage's new party and UKIP pans out), so MPs have to put the economy first and deal with what comes afterwards. It was political expediency that got us into this mess. It will not be political expediency that gets us out of it.

I was at Parliament Square for the vote on the deal Keano, and it was a very weird experience. To have two opposing sides demonstrating, but wanting the same outcome (the deal voted down). Very surreal. You are right on one thing. There is no deal better than the one we currently have as members of the EU, with our various existing opt outs and rebate. So any deal is going to be a trade off, probably in areas around trade, so what is the point really? The price we will pay for freedom to make trade deals outside of the EU will be reduced access or less competitive access to EU markets. No-one knows how that will work out (even though some try to say they do) because there are so many other factors at play. Any idea though that we can be some great Empire again with booming growth is misguided. The West is in decline and has been for some time.

Quite Tomdhu. This is an age old battle of opinion that has barely changed or shifted in decades. So why anyone thinks it will be resolved now is baffling.

The bulk of asset stripping came in the 80's care of one Goldsmith senior through various takeover bids, not during the Blair years. By the time the Tories reacted, it was too late. Goldsmith just took himself off to America instead and did exactly the same thing there. Where Blair and Brown can be criticised though is in exporting neo-liberal policy to the EU. It was never the other way round as so many leave voters seem to think. The points around QMV are valid ones. but came about from similar discussions around representative democracy, or perceived lack of it, as the EU expanded. The majority voting percentages have been adjusted regularly since, there is nothing new about that. In fact, if the current Treaty of Lisbon percentages had been applied in our referendum, neither side would have won it, which is why I find it somewhat ironic that any leave voter would offer that as any kind of criticism of the EU's voting rules. Once again, it is worth remembering that voting has only gone the opposite way to our government's wishes just 15% of the time since we joined the bloc.

Not true. Did you bother to read the link I sent you at all? If you had bothered to read it, you would see that the UK has been very influential in shaping policy. Oh and not to mention that very bespoke deal we already have, in not being part of Schengen, not adopting the Euro, rebate etc etc. Because you see, you bang on about sovereignty, but ignore the bleeding obvious before your very eyes, that we have always had a say in our role within the EU, always had a say in what we are prepared to adopt. And the truth is that we voted 'for' 85% of all legislation to pass through the EU during our entire membership of it. This is not a story of the UK having legislation foisted on it that it a) had no say in and b) never agreed with. And if you think differently, then prove it with the same detail and insight I have offered. Vague statements insinuating conspiratorial pacts won't cut it ;)

And you Trinnydad have no idea how the EU actually works. Directives only pass if the European Parliament vote for them. Germany has no overriding power in that. WE vote for MEPs. Commissioners are appointed by the governments WE elect. The EU parliament works in a similar way to our own, with stages of voting and intermediate committee stages. Now you tell me what part of that is undemocratic? I really suggest you read this link and learn something about what influences EU law. And then you might want to rethink your idea that Merkel is some kind of kingpin over which none of the other 26 members nations and their leaders have any say. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/10/eu-law-uk-eu-law-without-uk

You clearly have no conception of generational hardship do you TheCat. It can be argued that generational hardship, caused by successive governments doing too little to regenerate the economy outside of the SE is why we are where we are, with the EU being scapegoated for what has been too much reliance on the service sector and the SE for our economic growth. All that brexit delivers, is greater power to those very people who have shaped the economy that genuinely lies at the heart of our woes. Other countries manage perfectly well within the EU with better outcomes and less social inequality. Finland has such a low tax gap that people actually pay more than they need to. Whereas it is no accident that the biggest voices backing brexit politically speaking are also those with numerous offshore interests and have most to lose from the EU's coming directives on tax avoidance and tax havens. They sold a brexit to the people, and promised a deal that would be easy to agree, and have delivered nothing. They sold brexit from a completely different agenda to those they conned into voting for it. And they will continue to fail the very people they have failed for the last 40 years, if they get their way.

But who in their right mind is prepared to wear recession, knowing full well how that compounds millions of people, low paid and unemployed alike to hardship on top of 10 years of already bad austerity? Even worse than that, it makes no economic sense to risk recession at a time where billions have to be spent making those both economic and practical adjustments. And that is for me the whole problem with the Bexit debate. Economics (the real issue) was sidelined for vague notions around sovereignty and immigration. In truth, everything we are is government delivered, over successive decades. That is not going to change because we leave the EU. And also in truth, we have done more to shape EU policy over the past 25 years than being changed by it. This is a good read for an understanding of that. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/10/eu-law-uk-eu-law-without-uk All I see is continued confusion from many leave voters about how any of this stuff actually works.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Goddard and his slightly right of centre > mates are out for a p*ss up by the way on Saturday > - Everyone invited, Lords, Ladies, MPs, Leavers > and Remainers, all except the corrupt global > establishment (Anna Soubry) > > https://twitter.com/JGoddard230616/status/10859014 > 80144580609 They will be running into the Women's March - minus James of course, because he is banned from London for 28 days - conditions of his bail after being arrested for his behaviour the other week.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah said > > ?...compounded by the referendum not delivering a > definitive result either way...? > > ???? 4% is not definitive Keano. In fact, Farage held the same view before the referendum ;) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Corbyn wants a GE because he misguidedly thinks he will win it (even though the polling says he won't and his personal ratings are way down from where they need to be to look like being the next PM - always behind May in fact, and she is not in great shape either). Political expediency is the reason we were given this referendum, and political expediency is shaping much of what is going on in Parliament right now. Both main parties have half an eye on the next GE and both parties need both leave voters and remain voters to vote for them to win it. THAT is the problem, compounded by the referendum not delivering a definitive result either way. Two years have been completely wasted, with no effort to find consensus either within Parliament or among the people. I can see no other way to get a deal through the House than a 2nd referendum right now, and who knows how that will turn out.

She can of course call a 2nd ref arguing that the people should decide on the deal if parliament can't. And Labour are cornered into voting it through if there is no GE by their own membership and conference motion. I think that is where we are heading to be honest, along with an extension to A50 to facilitate it.

She did the right thing and you were right to report it to Police. It does not matter that nothing happened. One day a teenage girl may well accept the offer of a lift and what then? No adult should be pursuing an underage girl in this way, ever.

The whole problem with this debate is that it is biased in regards to type of highway user. Pedestrians are not interacting with vehicles on a pavement, so of course cyclists are branded the worse of the two, just as on the roads, cyclists brand drivers as worse and vice versa. The vast majority of accidents happen because one or more highway users do not use due care and attention, and no single type of road user has a monopoly on that.