Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Especially not an establishment led by the BBC that adds up all the losing votes in the election to say the winner didn't actually win.
They genuinely don't feel the wind of change blowing through the country.
We saw that same thing happen during the Republican primaries in 2016. Ted Cruz - who the establishment left media certainly does not like - won one of the early primaries. The story was that the third place candidates was the actual winner, because he finished higher than expected.
I really do not think they realize what destruction they do to their credibility when they behave this way.
... I don’t care about the UK at all, and I have no ties to the place whatsoever. .....
Of course you don't. It's obvious that you wish to project your Trump derangement anywhere and everywhere. It's sure must be a sad way to live.
The UK people know what they are doing. I applaud them for taking control of their goverment from the very forces which you seem to worship as infallible. Democracy is speaking there. The BRexit party, came from nothing to take the lion's share of the MEP seats. It's obvious they want out of the abomination known as the EU.
Boris Johnson has been summoned to court to face accusations of misconduct in public office over claims that he lied by saying Britain gave £350m a week to the European Union.The ruling follows a crowdfunded move to launch a private prosecution of the MP, who is the frontrunner in the Tory leadership contest.
Johnson lied and engaged in criminal conduct when he repeatedly claimed during the 2016 EU referendum campaign that the UK handed over the sum to Brussels, Westminster magistrates court was told last week by lawyers for a 29-year-old campaigner who has launched the prosecution bid.
District judge Margot Coleman ruled on Wednesday:
“The allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any findings of fact. Having considered all the relevant factors I am satisfied that this is a proper case to issue the summons as requested for the three offences as drafted. The charges are indictable only. This means the proposed defendant will be required to attend this court for a preliminary hearing, and the case will then be sent to the crown court for trial. The charges can only be dealt with in the crown court.”
What is the charge? "Misconduct?" What kind of charge is that?
We do not have a crime here for politicians (arguably) lying and misleading people. Do the British? If so, since when?
This sound like nonsense, but it should be interesting to watch and see what happens next with it.
What is the charge? "Misconduct?" What kind of charge is that?
We do not have a crime here for politicians (arguably) lying and misleading people. Do the British? If so, since when?
This sound like nonsense, but it should be interesting to watch and see what happens next with it.
It's a Private Prosecution. Much like a civil suit in the USA. It's coming from a businessman in Wales. The Judge who allowed it to move forward has already said, that it's unproven allegations, but according to the law has to let the accuser make their case.
On the other hand, it's clear the status quo establishment is terrified of Boris becoming PM. They are going to throw everything at him including the kitchen sink to see what sticks. Next up. Russian collusion.
We voted to leave the EU in 2016. All political parties accepted the result, and said we would leave the EU.
Since then, they have refused to do so, with excuses of all kinds why not.
I always knew, and said so in the UK thread, that we would never get a deal worth having from the EU. All we could do is leave without a deal, and recover from the damage done by this, as best we can.
The damage to us, and the EU also will be massive, especially concerning jobs. The question asked in the referendum, for us to vote on, was do we wish to remain in the EU, or leave. The majority voted to leave. There was no mention of only leave if we get a trade deal. Just leave, or remain.
We want the result of that vote implemented. Now, we have politicians in Parliament saying if the new PM tries to leave without a deal, they will bring down the government to stop them doing so.
All we have is Nigel Farage, and his Brexit party to vote for, and we will keep voting for him, even if that means destroying the current government. They will be annihilated in a General Election. We will never give up, until we have a government that carries out the democratic vote from 2016.
Thanks for posting. I have wondered. Cheers! Daughter graduated from one of your finest Colleges and every time I visit your Noble Nation collective courage stands like a beacon.
Lifting a glass for you all from an Island in the Pacific.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,780,652 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
It’s nothing to me regardless. The poster below me pretty much sums it up neatly.
You guys joined the EU knowing all along what the rules of the game were. The EU had already given Britain special dispensation like staying out of the monetary union. How many precepts do you expect the EU to just toss out just to keep Britain in the family?
When I think about it, it ALWAYS seems as if Anglophone nations always want extra special dispensation no matter what issue is. The United States is no better. We never want to play by any rules either. I’m beginning to think that we Anglophiles have it in our minds that we’re exceptional. Why, I’ll never know.
Very well said. Impressive on your part.
All issues that could’ve been addressed beforehand. Britain joined anyway, but seemingly wants only the benefits and none of the possible drawbacks.
The UK joined the Common Market. It was a trading pact. The EU came later.
The German Bundestag's foreign affairs committee chair Norbert Roettgen has warned that Germany will block another extension request by the UK unless the UK commits to holding a second referendum. This seems very reasonable and logical to me, as it the disruption of efforts to solve other problems and to promote integration efforts among EU countries that actually believe in that project are huge.
Germany will block another delay to Brexit at the European Council unless the UK announces a second referendum or general election by October, the Bundestag's foreign affairs committee chair has warned.
In a sign that Berlin is near the end of its tether on Brexit, Norbert Rottgen, a former minister and senior MP for Germany's ruling CDU party, said there could be no extension to the Article 50 process unless the UK offered a concrete reason, such as a public vote.
He also warned Tory leadership candidates against trying to "blackmail" the EU by threatening to leave with no deal unless the Brexit deal is changed.
That said, I will not be holding my breath in anticipation of this actually happening, but it would sure simplify matters if it does.
Jeremy Corbyn is still trying to ride two horses by insisting that the Labour party supports the 2016 referendum result for the UK to leave the EU, while at the same time remaining open to the idea of a second referendum, without actually endorsing such a move.
Jeremy Corbyn has said a second referendum is “some way off” and that Labour still wants to negotiate a better Brexit deal, resisting pressure from shadow cabinet ministers to commit to campaigning immediately for a public vote.
Speaking in Dublin, the Labour leader said the only way to break the deadlock would be a general election or a second referendum after negotiating a softer Brexit deal with Brussels.
Corbyn said there must not be a repeat of the 2016 referendum on Britain’s EU membership, and argued that Labour could strike a better agreement with Brussels that would include a customs union, which would then be put to a public vote.
He said: “We don’t back a rerun of 2016. That happened. That is gone. What I do say is that if parliament comes to an agreement, then it’s reasonable, and if parliament wishes it, there should be a public vote on it but that is some way off.”
So, let's be clear. The UK Labour party is officially a pro-Brexit party. But a great many traditional Labour supporters are not.
The Labour leader said he was “listening very carefully” to both sides of the debate after the party fell into third place behind the Liberal Democrats and also lost ground to the Greens. He said Labour’s preference would be a general election but any Brexit deal “has to be put to a public vote”.
It comes after two of his allies, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, hardened their positions on Monday in favour of a “people’s vote”. Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, and Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, also added to growing calls for a second referendum, with Labour campaigning to remain.
However, moves to back a second referendum under any circumstances faced immediate resistance from some wings of the party – including Unite’s general secretary, Len McCluskey, and close Corbyn allies in the shadow cabinet such as the party chair, Ian Lavery, and the shadow Cabinet Office minister, Jon Trickett.
Amid the conflicting calls, Corbyn said he would consult Labour members, affiliates, MPs and shadow cabinet ministers as the party’s approach to Brexit is reviewed.
If the Labour party declares for a second referendum, they will lose huge amounts of support from the midlands, where many Labour voters support Brexit. In fact, Jeremy Corbyn himself has for many years been somewhat of a Eurosceptic and has always stated that he preferred to leave the EU.
But if they do not support a second referendum, Labour party members who support a second referendum have already demonstrated their willingness to transfer their support to the Liberal Democrat party, which does openly support a second referendum.
The Labour party is still for the moment a pro-Brexit party. But politically, they are in a very tough spot.
Could that be one reason the editor of the NY Times forbade his writers from going on those channels?
You should have seen Attorney General Barr clarify all of this during his interview with Jan Crawford at CBS News on Thursday. Here is the link to the transcripts. It was truly epic.
There is nobody who does not know what a bunch of habitually lying, agenda driven partisan hacks these people are. Of course there are many who are as dishonest as they are who will lie and deny in their defense, obviously because they support the same agenda.
The Attorney General of the United States is no longer playing along, acting like he trusts or believes these people. Of course nobody else should either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
