There's an interesting TED talk on Youtube about how Facebook was used to direct misleading pro-brexit adverts to certain members of society. It's relevant to me as a lot of local people here were targeted and voted to leave despite our borough getting the most benefit from the EU. Scary stuff. Anyone who still claims democracy has any part in this farce after the latest chapter should give this a watch.
Hmmmmm. If Boris and Rees Mogg wanted to leave, why not support their own party and vote for TM's deal? THEY stopped us leaving with that deal.
IF Boris had a plan why on earth did he need 30 days more after 3 years of having the chance to formulate it? Where is that deal now? Anyone know what he's planning? Has any proposal been put forward to Europe? Any scrutiny of the plan in Parliament?
As for the proroguing - Boris knew exactly what he was doing. Amber Rudd - a member of his cabinet said that they weren't involved in the decision and the request for the papers on the legality of the action were requested and weeks later still have not been provided. If a Queens speech requires 4-6 days - fine. Why 5 weeks? The argument about the time allowing for conference season is blatantly false - as it omits to say that the 'recess' for that is voted on - it is not a given or an option that is solely the PM's. I think you'll see that point in action as the Tories will need a vote for their conference - and I doubt the vote will go their way - but we'll see.
As for the Supreme Court judges all being biased......
And - back when TM was Home Secretary we had immigration of x - of which 60% was non EU and 40% was. So this country has had the ability already restrict 60% of immigration. Have they? Did they? Do they? No? Take a look at the actual facts of what happened - not '20 things you ought to know about immigration' in the Sun.
The world is a small place - and the issue that the world faces are far too big for one country to address. History has shown that man congregates into bigger and bigger units (family,tribe,village,town,city,city state, country, empire) - and each bigger unit generates its own issues and needs controls. The UK can't fix the use of plastic, migration of people or climate issues - only by being part of bigger groups can you have any sway.
I have read the article that states after the end of the present agreement in 2020 all member states will "have" to take up the euro in six months, and some laws/taxes or government will be transferred to Europe without the right of a veto by any country. Do we really want that? Europe is steadily marching on into it's own crisis , senior member states are financially failing and the new states are a financial burden, do we really want to be in it when it all falls apart and they expect us to prop them up?
wild edges I don't wish to et into an argument with you but there is an ongoing court case re article 50. If there is some this I have found out this forum seems to be mainly remainers so are bound to be a biased bunch. When I join this forum I didn't expect politics to be discussed for that I would have joined a political forum. wild edge you suggest I read article 50 well may I likewise suggest the people on this site read up on what the EU have in store for us, it is not good, and they should not brand someone a liar with proof and not even those judges have proof the Queen was lied to, only she and our PM know what was said.
I have read the article that states after the end of the present agreement in 2020 all member states will "have" to take up the euro in six months, and some laws/taxes or government will be transferred to Europe without the right of a veto by any country. Do we really want that? Europe is steadily marching on into it's own crisis , senior member states are financially failing and the new states are a financial burden, do we really want to be in it when it all falls apart and they expect us to prop them up?
Posts
As regards the 'having to join the Euro' thing, that's easily refuted: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-countries-euro-2020/