It's weird. Every Scot I know (bar one) despises the SNP with a passion. They must be a devisive party, either loved or loathed. Doesn't seem to be any middle ground on opinion with them. Bit like the Brexit party that are now on the rise.
That's fine, no agreement on this point is necessary. Most Scottish I speak to day-to-day are not fans of the SNP, but I cannot state that I encounter an entirely representative sample on a daily basis. On-line, I encounter a roughly equal mix of pro- and anti-SNP Scottish. On here, and on other social media I take an interest in. Oh. From what you are saying here, it's almost like it does not matter who will be PM all the time we remain in the EU. Thank you for apparently accepting my point. The Remain-at-all-costs MPs need to be expelled from Parliament, and replaced with MPs who respect the 2016 Ref result and the manifesto on which they were elected to Parliament. You know what I mean - politicians who do more than pay lip-service to the principles of democracy. Until then and until we leave the EU, it really doesn't matter who the UK PM ... oh, you already said as much, didn't you?
I agree that Corbyn is a man of few words. I just wish he'd use a few more words and tell us what his Brexit position really is, instead of keeping schtum and waiting for May to self-immolate.
Yes, it doesn’t matter who is PM with the current mix if MPs. The only way out is a GE or another referendum. I interpreted your point of view as being that the EU has so much power that U.K. pms have little control.which I don’t agree with. It would seem you do meet a representative sample of Scottish people since it’s about 50/50 whether to go or not. Wait until Boris becomes PM and then has to make way for Farage......assuming he does not have to face rape charges or some other scandal......you read it here first!!
I doubt it would be too far of a stretch to suggest May has been allowed to be as bad as she is, courtesy of one of the worst oppositions we have ever had
We don't have to agree on that. In the spirit of compromise though, I offer a slightly more shaded opinion. It doesn't make enough difference who is PM whilst the UK remains in the EU, as things currently stand (and ignoring the treachery of the majority of most MPs). Furthermore - the EU's influence (or rather, control) is set to grow in the next few years - control over budgeting, military investment, control over the military, industry, fiscal policy, loss of veto ... in a few years, if the UK is still *in* (by any definition) the EU, the make-up of our Parliament and the identity of our PM will be largely academic. If you don't see that, you aren't looking. Remember, a country consists of borders, currency, control over its laws and the ability to defend itself from outside aggressors. Whoever has ownership of these issues, is in charge of the country. How many of these items will be in Westminster's hands after, say, five more years of EU membership?
Even I would find those developments a concern. But they are future possibles not current or historic. In some ways I feel sorry for the PM and her immediate successor. They are hamstrung by the ruling on the Gina Miller case. Only a GE or second referendum can remove the problem, and that assumes Farage or the Lib Dem’s win.
Err ... where the UK is allowed to source its naval support ships from, and funding and control over military projects is written into the WA that MayBot is desperate to get through parliament. Do you not pay attention? WTAF? Never post to the Forum whilst drunk, 749er or when under the influence of Class A narcotics. Never do it. Sorry, I was being flippant there. To be serious for a moment ... WTAF? Are you for real?
Can you please just clarify - are you saying that we should not be concerned about "future developments" that the EU is currently pushing hard and instead what until they are historical before we begin to do something about them?
May suffered the two biggest defeats in UK government history. Now she has her own party threatening to change the rules so that they can throw her out unless she resigns before they next meet mid June. I doubt it would be too far of a stretch to suggest May has been absolute crap, and is loathed by most Tories and the opposition on her own account.
The kind of crap that May is is different from the kind of crap Corbyn is. In the end though, they are both toxic for the UK. I don't actually believe the Tories when they talk about ousting May. I don't believe a word they say any more. They can talk about "no confidence", "rule changes", "loathing" but all the time they have no one worthwhile that they would be prepared to put forward to replace her, those words ring hollow. Can you imagine MayBot being replaced by Gove?
The other side of that coin is the eu itself. If you look at the candidates running for Junkers job, Almost all are die hard federalists with the sole intention of turning europe into the united states of europe and countries being then defined as states of that "eu country" and their intent is to call europe a country. I've yet to see a single candidate say "we have learnt from brexit and need to be more understanding of individual countries and their people" So fire away on what the U.K. can do but there is not doubt, the tories next leader will be a brexiteer and Junkers replacement will be a hard liner eu federalist seeking total control of europe from Brussels.
Sadly Yes! Or equally Johnson/ Leadsome/ Truss/ Waab. Still it would be the end of the current toxic Tories and possibly worthwhile
