‘Sycophant’ to whom precisely? He variously blames the current and recent Government and Oppositions of incompetence and Treason, and also blamed the Queen for being to removed from it, compared with her father.
cool, good news for wales. but let me noobify it. one of the wealthiest persons on the planet, using taxpayers money to replace a fraction of the lost jobs, who will no doubt lobby for reduced workers rights and threaten to close and move the whole cite to another country if anybody steps out of line. as per his actions at Grangemouth. yea.
At least you're not demanding why did the welsh get it, scotland should be first It's fantastic news for the people of Bridgend you curmudgeon. All new vast employers get help, ask your own devolved government how they do it As to inneos grangemouth, the new refining plant is to be mostly processing the very same shale oil and gas from the usa the snpee say they have banned, well nearly, maybe, possible, might be a press statement from happening in Scotchland For now though, for the people in Bridgened
to who ever pays his wage. but that will learn me not to comment before watching. I based my comment on his words 5+ years ago as he was often wheeled out to tell us how ungrateful we are and incapable as a nation. a rude piece of shit. his versions of history is completely at odds with what I have read from non establishment historians.
So will Borris sell you all down the road in the next 12 days or will he free you from the shackles of the EU
It’s very interesting, albeit predictably one sided, but spoiled by three things. 1. The obsequious servility of the interviewer. 2. Starkey’s relentless ad hominem attacks. I am two thirds of the way through and so far he’s referred to individuals and groups as “pigs”, “shits”, “clowns”, “ridiculous”, “traitors”, “ludicrous”, “disgusting”. I may have missed others. 3. His hyperbole generally. I also teach advocacy to Bar students and pupil barristers and I was continually cringing at the way he put his arguments. It’s what we call “opening high”, ie: overstating a case. It probably plays well with the target audience as it was very much preaching to the choir, and as a piece of entertainment it worked, but as an exercise in persuasion (if that was any part of its intention), it was an abject failure. Having said that, the final 5 minute digression into a disquisition about Blairism amounting to an effectively undeclared revolution and the wrong turn the Tories took into a cult like devotion to the free market was fascinating. I’ve made that argument myself in the past and in fact only a few pages ago in this very thread, I railed against Blair’s undermining of the Rule of Law, the attacks on the independence of the judiciary and restrictions on access to justice. One thing that DS didn’t reference in respect of Blair’s rule though (probably due to time), was its hyperactive legislating. In 2011 I attended a lecture given by David Omerod QC, who is a leading academic lawyer, and he said that if you built two stacks comprising all the legislation passed between 1066 and 1997, and all that passed between 1997 and whenever New Labour got booted out, the latter pile would be higher. The penny dropped for me at that point 8 years ago as I realised that it represented, in my view, an attempt to interfere in every person’s actions almost all the time, to micro-mange everyday life, which demonstrated a fundamental mistrust of the populace and so is inherently totalitarian in nature. Thanks though. As I’ve said before, but with the above caveats. it is good to hear a reasoned argument from the Leave perspective.
I think everyone has PTSD from the keyboard wars this time last week. Either that or the other side have thrown the towel in, in which case I herby declare today, 20th September, “VB Day”
I’m pretty sure it was a draw, if you do the maths correctly. We need another referendum. I’m a real remainer now.
Now what we have here is a situation We had a referendum in 1975 and the people voted to stay in after been taken in without anyone asking us, apparently that was legal We had a referendum in 2016 where the people were asked in advance this time and we voted to leave. It was only at this point, the remaining side that lost said hey, you do know referendums are not legally obliged to implement, they are just advisory Now, the losers in round 2, want a third referendum, despite saying they are advisory only, with no declaration of the rules in advance that they want to accept this time, and some of them are saying before one might happen, that they won't accept the result unless it is remain Answers on a postcard
